get-writing-styles

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

With no annotations, the description relies on 'Get list' to convey a read-only operation. It doesn't mention return format, ordering, authentication, or any other behavioral traits, but for a simple list endpoint this is minimally adequate.

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 that front-loads the purpose and contains no filler. Every word 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 simple parameterless list tool, the description adequately explains that it returns writing styles for rephrasing. However, given sibling tools like get-writing-tones, some disambiguation would be helpful, making it slightly incomplete.

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 has zero parameters and the schema covers all (none) parameters. With 0 params, the baseline is 4, and the description doesn't need to add parameter details.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get list' and identifies the resource as 'writing styles' used by DeepL when rephrasing text. It is clear and somewhat distinguishes from siblings by mentioning the rephrasing context, but it doesn't explicitly contrast with get-writing-tones or list-style-rules.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the phrase 'while rephrasing text' implies it's for use before rephrasing. It lacks clear exclusions or references to sibling tools like get-writing-tones or list-style-rules.

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