get_style

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only covers case-insensitive lookup and return format. It does not disclose error behavior (e.g., what happens if the style doesn't exist) or other operational traits. The return schema is included, which helps, but more explicit behavioral context is missing.

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 concise: one sentence for purpose, followed by Args and Returns sections. It is front-loaded, with no wasted words. Every sentence adds value and is well-structured for quick parsing.

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 tool's low complexity (single parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description fully covers the required aspects: input parameter semantics and return value structure. No additional behavioral details are necessary for effective use.

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 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'name_or_id', so the description compensates by explaining it accepts a style name or styleId and is case-insensitive. This adds necessary context beyond the bare type.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'details of a single style', explicitly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_styles, delete_style, etc. It also specifies the lookup method (by name or styleId, case-insensitive), leaving no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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 implies usage for retrieving a single style's details but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives like get_styles, nor any context about prerequisites or expected scenarios. No exclusions or comparisons are made.

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