Get exact Moonvy node style

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly implies a read operation by saying 'Return', which is transparent about its non-destructive nature. However, it does not mention any potential side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or error behavior. This is adequate but not rich in behavioral context.

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 a single, dense sentence that front-loads the action verb and comprehensively lists the returned data. Every word adds value; there is no fluff or redundancy. This is much like the high-calibration example in efficiency.

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?

The description enumerates all key style properties (fills, typography, borders, etc.) and mentions 'directly usable CSS declarations', giving a solid picture of the return value. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not address error conditions or exact structure of the returned object. Given the tool's complexity, it is largely complete but leaves some details to inference.

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%: both 'url' and 'nodeId' are already documented with examples and format. The description adds no further parameter guidance, so the baseline 3 applies. It does not compensate beyond the schema, but it also does not conflict.

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 starts with the verb 'Return' and specifies the resource as 'one node's style', followed by a detailed list of what is returned (size, coordinates, fills, CSS declarations, etc.). This is specific and distinct from sibling tools like moonvy_get_design (whole design) or moonvy_get_ui_spec (UI spec), so an agent can clearly understand what this tool does.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent is left to infer that this is for retrieving style of a single node, but there is no explicit comparison with siblings like moonvy_get_ui_spec or moonvy_get_design.

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