Get custom instructions for a style

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

Annotations already declare the operation as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful behavioral detail: it returns saved instructions for a scope, and for a style it also returns the effective merged text. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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 core action and scope, and no wasted words. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's behavior and its relationship to get_style_guide.

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 simple read-only tool with one optional parameter, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the global/scope distinction, the style-specific behavior including merged text, and the relationship to get_style_guide. No output schema exists, but the description gives a clear idea of what the tool returns.

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. The description reinforces the semantics of the optional styleId (global vs style) and mentions list_styles indirectly, but the schema already documents the omit-for-global behavior. The description adds little meaning 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('saved instructions for a scope'), clearly distinguishing global vs style-specific context. It also differentiates from the sibling get_style_guide by noting that get_style_guide already folds in the effective merged text.

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?

It explains the optional styleId scope and the default global behavior, and explicitly relates to get_style_guide by noting what get_style_guide already does. It does not provide explicit 'when not to use' guidance, but the context is clear enough for the agent to choose between this and get_style_guide.

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