get_style

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'Read-only' confirmation (redundant with annotations) and clarifies the list->fetch sequencing dependency, but doesn't elaborate on the output structure beyond the general content types, which is partially covered by the output schema. It adds modest value beyond annotations.

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?

Three sentences, all earning their place: the first defines what is returned, the second declares read-only safety, the third provides the critical usage sequence. Zero filler or redundant verbiage. Well-front-loaded with the purpose before the context.

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 single simple parameter, full schema coverage, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description is nearly complete. It could arguably note what happens when an invalid/unknown style name is passed, but for a straightforward profile-fetch tool with such clean annotations, this is essentially fully specified. The only minor gap is error-handling behavior for unknown names.

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 100% — the input schema already explains that the style parameter is a name like 'techno' or 'breaks' and points to list_styles. The description reiterates this dependency but adds minimal new meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full 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?

Clearly states the verb ('Get'), resource ('full profile for a style'), and scope ('spectral curve, track balance, compression and FX recommendations'). Effectively distinguishes from siblings like list_styles (which lists names) and analyze_audio (which analyzes audio rather than fetching a named style profile).

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?

Explicitly instructs the agent to call list_styles first to see available names, then pass one to this tool. This provides a clear when-to-use and sequencing directive. The implicit contrast with list_styles (which merely lists) clarifies when this tool is the right choice — when a detailed profile is needed.

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