Get design reference

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose meaningful content traits — platform-tagged rules, web HTML/CSS guidance, and official Apple source links — which helps the agent anticipate the return. It says nothing about error behavior for unknown ids or rate limits, but read-only behavior is clear from the verb.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and content type. The middle sentence about Apple creating the guidance is borderline filler but is brief and establishes attribution, so it does not seriously hurt readability.

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, the description does the work of describing what comes back: platform-tagged rules, web HTML/CSS guidance, and official source links. For a single-card lookup with a fully documented schema, this is nearly complete; only failure modes for invalid ids are unaddressed.

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%, with the id example values and the platform enum already documented in the schema. The description's mention of 'platform-tagged rules' and 'web HTML/CSS guidance' loosely corroborates the platform parameter but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the 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?

States a specific verb (Return) and resource (community implementation notes inspired by Apple's HIG), and clarifies the content type. However, it never distinguishes itself from siblings like get_topic or search_hig, which likely return overlapping design guidance, so an agent cannot tell which one to pick from the purpose alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no alternatives named. The description implies retrieval of a single reference card by id but never says when this is preferable to search_hig, get_topic, or list_topics.

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