art.get_style

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral burden. It states that this is a retrieval operation ('Returns'), but does not disclose other behavioral details such as what happens when an unknown style_id is used, whether the active style can change, or what the returned definition contains. The description is accurate but minimal.

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 one sentence, front-loaded with what the tool does, and immediately explains how to modify the default behavior. Every phrase contributes meaning: 'Returns the active style definition' sets the base, and 'Optionally specify style_id and version' covers the parameters.

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 retrieval tool with two optional, fully documented parameters, the description is largely complete. It lacks an explicit return format or mention of errors, but given the absence of an output schema and the low complexity, the current description provides enough context for correct invocation in most cases.

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%, so the parameters are already well documented in the schema. The description adds a small amount of context about using style_id and version together, but it mostly restates the optionality and lookup semantics that the schema already conveys.

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 identifies the action ('Returns') and resource ('style definition'), and distinguishes between the active style and a specific style when style_id/version are provided. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools such as art.get_style_rules, but the resource and behavior are immediately understandable.

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 provides useful operational guidance: omit style_id for the active style, or supply style_id and optionally version for a specific style. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like art.get_style_rules or art.validate_style, so usage guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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