get_design_context

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

Annotations already cover the safe-read profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavior: revision must be pinned on the first read and matched on continuations, and it explicitly disclaims side effects ('Does not create sessions'). It does not describe pagination/cursor behavior, which is the main remaining gap.

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 dense sentences with no filler, and the view enumeration is front-loaded so an agent can key on it immediately. The revision rule follows logically, though the parameter list inside the sentence reads a bit run-on.

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?

For a six-parameter, read-only, no-output-schema tool this is only partly adequate: the view selection and revision protocol are covered, but the roles of cursor, nodeId, and pageId are never explained in either the schema or the description.

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 description coverage is 0% across six parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It only explains the 'view' enum and the designId exclusion for 'sessions'; cursor, nodeId, pageId, designId, and revision semantics are left entirely undocumented, leaving most parameters opaque.

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 ('Read') and resource ('focused design view') and enumerates the seven selectable views, so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It also explicitly disclaims session creation, which cleanly separates it from begin_design, though it doesn't position itself against the other read-style siblings.

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 one concrete conditional rule ('sessions' takes no designId) and a revision-matching rule for continuations, which implies how to chain calls. However, there is no guidance on when to pick a given view over a sibling tool like get_component_details or get_rhythm_rules.

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