List Prompt Styles

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It adds value by exposing the GET method (implying read-only, side-effect-free behavior) and suggesting that each style is referenced by name—but it doesn't disclose the response shape, whether the list is sorted, or error conditions. Adequate but not rich behavioral disclosure.

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 short, information-dense sentences in exactly the right order: action first, then the practical apply-note. The endpoint parenthetical adds reference value without bloat; every token earns its place.

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, no-output-schema list tool, the description covers the essentials: what it lists, the underlying endpoint binding, and how to use the result. It could have described the response format (array of style objects vs. names), so it's not a perfect 5, but it's complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 tool takes zero parameters and schema coverage is trivially 100%. No parameter documentation is needed, so the baseline of 4 applies—the description need not compensate for any schema gaps.

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?

'List prompt styles' is a crisp subject-verb-resource statement that unambiguously identifies the operation. The HTTP endpoint '(GET /sdapi/v1/prompt-styles)' reinforces a read-only list operation and differentiates it from the many other sdnext_list_* siblings.

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?

'Apply via styles: ["style name"]' is a practical hint connecting the tool's output to the consuming parameter, which is genuinely useful context for an agent. It doesn't spell out exclusions or alternatives, but for a zero-parameter listing tool this level of directional guidance is solid.

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