get_local_styles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Get all' clearly signals a read-only operation, and enumerating paint, text, and effect styles tells the agent exactly what will be retrieved. It does not describe response shape, but for a simple getter this is a minor gap.

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 a single efficient sentence that front-loads the action and resource without any filler. Every word adds meaning: all, local, paint/text/effect, styles, and file scope.

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 parameterless getter, the description is nearly complete: it states the scope, resource type, and categories. The only missing piece is an explicit description of the return structure, which might matter since there is no output schema, but the low complexity keeps this gap minor.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline for parameter semantics is 4. The description adds no parameter details because none are needed; it appropriately focuses on the returned style categories.

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 names a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('local paint, text, and effect styles'), and a scope ('in the file'). This is sufficiently distinct from siblings like get_local_variables (variables vs styles) and type_list_styles (text-only vs all local styles).

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 gives clear context by scoping to local styles in the current file, which tells an agent when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is clear enough for a zero-parameter retrieval tool.

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