Get project branding

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral details: it returns a ready-to-inject generation instruction, CSS :root snippet, and missing fields. No contradictions.

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, front-loading the return value list. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

Despite no output schema and low schema coverage, the description details what is returned (name, tagline, etc.), including generation instruction, CSS snippet, and missing fields. This is nearly complete for a read-only retrieval tool. The only gap is the parameter semantics.

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?

There is one parameter 'project' with no description in the schema (0% coverage). The tool description does not explain what the project parameter expects (e.g., ID or name). Since the parameter is not self-explanatory, the description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 specifies the tool returns the project's brand kit including name, tagline, words, voice, colors, logo, font, plus a generation instruction, CSS snippet, and missing fields. It is a specific verb+resource, distinct from siblings like set_branding.

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 explicitly states 'Call this before generating any branded asset to stay consistent', providing clear usage context. While it does not mention when not to use or alternatives, it gives actionable guidance.

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