Get full design packs by id

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real value on top with the default token budget (2400) and the includeBody behavior that returns a full document instead of an excerpt. It does not disclose truncation behavior when the budget is exceeded, which would be the remaining useful detail.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and sequenced guidance in four short sentences with no filler. The closing 'Default budget 2400 tokens' duplicates the maxTokens schema description, a small 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?

With no output schema and four simple flat parameters, the definition covers invocation, projection choice, and budget. The main gap is that nothing describes the shape or fields of a returned pack, which matters since there is no output schema to lean on.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description genuinely extends meaning: it maps each format enum value to a use case, whereas the schema only says 'Response projection'. It also clarifies includeBody applies to references specifically. The budget default restates the schema and adds nothing.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Fetch one or more packs by id') and ties it to the sibling 'taste_search' as the preceding step. It never spells out what a 'pack' contains or how it differs from taste_guidelines/taste_audit output, so sibling differentiation is only partial.

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?

Gives explicit sequencing ('after taste_search') and routes format choice by intent: brief for decisions, full/markdown for implementation detail, json for raw data. It stops short of saying when not to use this tool (e.g. when a search result alone suffices).

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