get_design_context

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, but the description describes a read-only operation (getting a tree). The description does not clarify any side effects or destructive behavior, contradicting the annotation. No extra behavioral context added.

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?

Two sentences with no redundancy. First sentence covers purpose and comparison, second adds parameter nuance. Every word contributes.

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?

No output schema, so description should clarify return format. It only says 'tree' without structure details. The destructive annotation is unexplained. Parameter coverage is good, but overall completeness is moderate given the lack of output and behavioral clarification.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the description enriches parameter understanding by explicitly naming detail levels (minimal, compact, full) and explaining dedupe_components for repeated instances, adding value beyond schema descriptions.

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?

Description states the tool fetches a depth-limited, token-efficient tree of the current selection or page, clearly identifying the resource and action. It also explicitly contrasts with get_document, distinguishing it from a sibling tool.

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 advises using this tool instead of get_document for large files, providing explicit alternative. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or exclusions.

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