art.style.check

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does communicate the essential operation — a comparison against compiled style constraints — and 'check' implies no mutation, but it does not disclose the return format, any preconditions on compiled constraints, or whether any side effects could occur.

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, front-loaded sentence conveys the action, target, and comparison basis without filler. Every phrase contributes useful information.

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 has only two parameters and full schema coverage, so basic callability is clear. However, there is no mention of what the result looks like, what happens if style constraints are not yet compiled, or how material affects checking, leaving the agent to infer important operational context.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, with both session_id and material described in the schema. The description adds no parameter details itself, but this is acceptable because the schema already documents the parameters and the material parameter's context-specific checking purpose.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('style consistency check on a canvas session') and clarifies the actual behavior: comparing canvas content against compiled style constraints. This distinguishes it from style compilation, validation, and retrieval tools in the same family.

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 context: checking canvas content after style constraints have been compiled. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over related tools such as art.validate_style or how the optional material parameter changes the scope.

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