get_design_rules

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds one behavioral detail beyond that - the empty-argument call returns the catalog index - which is helpful but thin; return format, filtering behavior, and result shape are not described.

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, front-loaded with the substantive purpose and followed by the empty-call behavior. No filler or redundancy; slightly terse rather than wasteful.

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 read-only retrieval tool with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete, and the empty-call index behavior covers the main discovery path. A brief note on return shape would be the only remaining gap, and it is minor absent an output schema.

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 100% across all 10 parameters, so the schema already documents each field including the two enums. The description adds no per-parameter meaning (e.g., how query vs name vs id differ, or how aliases resolve) beyond what the schema states, so this is the baseline case.

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 (Retrieve) and resource (technical implementation constraints), then enumerates the covered domains: Tailwind CSS v4 syntax, FSM data-state contracts, CSS variables, and HTML landmarks. This is clear, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from overlapping siblings like get_rhythm_rules, get_fsm_recipe, or get_design_context, which appear to cover adjacent ground.

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 one usage hint given is genuinely useful: calling with {} returns the top-level catalog index, which implies a discovery workflow. However, it names no alternatives and gives no when-not guidance relative to the numerous sibling rule/context tools, leaving the agent to infer routing.

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