card_builder_list_style_targets

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

No annotations provided; the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only, has rate limits, or returns paginated results. The minimalist description adds little beyond the basic purpose.

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 concise, using a single sentence plus an example. The example adds clarity without unnecessary verbosity. It is appropriately front-loaded.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description could be minimal, but it still fails to clarify the scope of 'style targets' or how the block_type parameter affects the output. The example only covers one case, leaving ambiguity for other block types.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It only indirectly mentions 'block_type' through the example but does not explain its meaning, possible values, or formatting. The example is helpful but insufficient.

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 clearly states the tool lists style targets for a block and provides an illustrative example. While it distinguishes from sibling list tools by focusing on 'style targets', it does not explicitly contrast with similar tools like 'card_builder_list_block_types'.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'card_builder_list_style_categories' or 'card_builder_list_style_presets'. The description lacks any contextual usage recommendations.

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