List writing styles

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavior context: it lists styles from multiple sources and conditionally includes a team style only if .etincelrc defines one, which is not inferable from annotations alone.

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?

A single, information-dense sentence that packs purpose, scope, and usage guidance without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the key action and reads naturally.

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 zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool returns (all available styles) and when to invoke it. The conditional team style nuance is also disclosed. No missing context.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per rubric. The description reinforces that the tool lists every style with no filtering, which adds semantic clarity beyond the empty 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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'List every available style.' It enumerates the categories of styles (premade emotional-tone presets, user-trained voices, conditional team style), clearly distinguishing this listing tool from sibling tools that create, update, or delete styles.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Call this before drafting or revising non-fiction prose if the caller hasn't been told which style to use, or if the user asks what styles exist.' This provides clear contextual guidance without needing to reference alternatives.

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