card_builder_get_style_snippet

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the return structure and readiness for assignment, but does not mention behavioral traits such as idempotency (read-only), error behavior if the snippet does not exist, or any side effects. The description adds value beyond the name but lacks depth on non-obvious behaviors.

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 two sentences, both substantive: it states the action ('Fetch one snippet wrapped in the full target/container envelope') and explains the return format and usage. No filler or unnecessary words.

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 fetch tool, the description covers the core function and output structure. However, it lacks preconditions (e.g., the snippet must exist), error handling, and does not mention that this is a read operation. With an output schema present but not visible, the description is adequate but not thorough.

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 0%, meaning the description must compensate. However, it does not define what each parameter (name, target, container) represents. While parameter names and defaults provide some hint, the description adds no explicit explanation, failing to match the requirement for low schema coverage.

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 a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('one snippet wrapped in envelope'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like card_builder_list_style_snippets which list multiple snippets. It also explains the return format and how it's used (ready to assign to block's styles), making the purpose 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?

The description implies usage when a single snippet for a specific target/container is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., card_builder_build_styles for building styles, or card_builder_list_style_snippets for listing). No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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