List style ids from the sitemap

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the data source (public sitemap) and the shape of the return (UUIDs plus timestamps) plus the read-only, lightweight nature. It omits pagination/rate behavior and what happens on an empty result, so the disclosure is partial.

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 tight sentences with zero waste; the what is front-loaded and the intended use follows immediately.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description names exactly what comes back (UUIDs and last-modified timestamps), which compensates adequately for a simple listing tool. Only minor gaps remain around pagination and default/empty-result behavior.

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 coverage is 100%, so limit, offset, and updated_since are already fully documented in the schema; the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no syntax, format, or interaction details beyond what the schema provides.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: returns published style UUIDs plus last-modified timestamps. The 'without reading any style page' clause hints at how it differs from page-reading siblings like refero_get_style, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Intended usage is implied ('discover ids'), which is enough to infer this is a lightweight discovery step before fetching a style. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternative such as refero_search_styles for filtered discovery.

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