get_available_styles

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 tool as a read operation ('Get a list'), which implies it's non-destructive and likely read-only, but doesn't explicitly state permissions, rate limits, or return format details. The description adds basic behavioral context but lacks depth for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 concise sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose, and the second provides usage guidelines. It is front-loaded with the core action and efficiently conveys all necessary information without redundancy.

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 tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose and usage well, but lacks details on return format or behavioral traits like error handling. For a simple list tool, this is sufficient but not exhaustive.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose and usage. A baseline of 4 is applied as it compensates well for the lack of parameters by providing clear context.

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 specific action ('Get a list') and resource ('all available QR code style presets with their color schemes'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like generate_qr_code which creates codes, generate_qr_urls_batch which batches generation, and preview_qr_url which previews URLs. It explicitly identifies what is being retrieved and why.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use this to discover styling options before generating QR codes.' This provides clear context for usage (pre-generation discovery) and implies an alternative (use other tools for actual generation), guiding the agent effectively.

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