List AI Canvas design systems

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, covering safety and behavior. The description adds conceptual context (that design systems are installable in one CLI command) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as pagination, ordering, or output format. This is adequate but not rich, so a 3 is appropriate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded in the first sentence ('Return every design system available on AI Canvas'). The second sentence adds a definition and usage guidance without waste. Every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 params, no output schema, strong annotations), the description is nearly complete. It states what the tool returns and when to use it. It could mention what fields the output includes (e.g., IDs for use with get_system), but this is not necessary for a simple list tool, so a 4 is justified.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has zero parameters, and the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description adds conceptual clarity about design systems but does not need to explain parameter details since there are none. The description's definition of a design system adds some semantic value beyond the empty schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool returns every design system available on AI Canvas, with a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('design systems'). It also defines what a design system is, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_system (which retrieves a specific system) and list_components (which lists single components).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit usage context: 'Use when the user asks about themes, design systems, or wants more than a single component.' It clearly implies when to use this tool over alternatives but does not formally name exclusions or alternative tools, making it a 4 rather than a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.