search_design_system

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

The description discloses that it uses a local index and consumes no extra API quota beyond one file fetch, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not address other behaviors such as error handling, sorting, or pagination. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and is only partially adequate.

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 concise with two sentences, front-loading the main purpose and adding a key behavioral note. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more structured.

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 has 6 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain how parameters like types, nodeId, or fileKey interact, nor does it describe the output format or error scenarios.

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 83%, so most parameters are already described in the schema. The description adds only the high-level search context, not additional parameter details. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 searches a file's design system for components, component sets, and published styles, which is a specific verb+resource. It also distinguishes from siblings like get_design_context or get_metadata by mentioning local index and quota.

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 implies usage for searching design system elements but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_variable_defs or get_design_context. No exclusion criteria or context is provided.

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