Need the rules for a specific art category? Retrieve the active style's guidelines for pixel language, outline, shape language, lighting, or animation to maintain visual consistency.
Returns the rules for a specific category of the active style.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | Yes | Rule category: pixel_language, outline, shape_language, lighting, or animation. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is a read ('Returns'), and hints at a dependency on an 'active style' being set. However, it does not explain prerequisites (how the active style gets established), error behavior when a category has no rules, or what 'active' means in context. Adequate for a simple getter but not rich.
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 sentence of zero redundancy that front-loads the verb ('Returns') before the resource. Every word earns its place; nothing to cut and nothing missing in terms of phrasing 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 tool is simple (1 param, enum-constrained, no output schema, no nesting), so the bar is low. The description states the return semantics adequately, but leaves the 'active style' dependency unexplained and does not clarify what happens for an empty category. For a low-complexity tool this is close to adequate, with only the state-dependency gap holding it back.
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% — the schema already documents the single 'category' parameter with its enum values and an inline description. The tool description adds no parameter-level information beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.
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?
Clear verb+resource: 'Returns the rules for a specific category of the active style.' It identifies the operation (retrieve) and the resource (style rules by category). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like art.get_style (which returns the whole style) or art.qa.list_rules, so it doesn't fully earn a 5, but the purpose is unambiguous.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no 'use when...', no exclusions, and no mention that art.get_style or art.qa.list_rules might serve different purposes. The description relies entirely on the reader to infer usage from the term 'returns'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.