Get a style guide

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations, such as the fact that .etincelrc team-wide instructions are folded into every style's instructions, not just 'team''s, and that the tool is context, not an action.

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 moderately detailed but every sentence earns its place. It front-loads the core function, then explains return content, special folding behavior, and usage context without redundancy or fluff.

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 simple single-parameter interface, the description is remarkably complete. It explains what the return value contains, how .etincelrc affects results, and when to use the tool. There is no output schema, so the description appropriately covers return semantics.

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?

The schema already documents styleId as a preset, trained voice, or 'team'. The description adds further meaning with a concrete example ('direct-warm') and clarifies the semantics of 'team' in relation to .etincelrc, going beyond the schema's description.

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 fetches the full drafting guide for one style, with specific examples of style IDs and the special 'team' case. It also distinguishes itself from prose-writing tools by explicitly saying it is context for the drafting model, not a tool that writes prose itself.

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 gives a clear usage instruction: 'Read this before drafting.' It also explains what the tool returns and the context in which it is used (drafting or revising). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, though this is implied by the drafting context.

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