Get an interface style

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Read-only: it returns the text and writes nothing to disk' and details the 403 upgrade-path behavior for Pro records without leaking the payload. This is unusually transparent and safety-relevant.

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 dense sentences, each earning their place: the action and formats, the conceptual caveat about needing a design kit, and the auth/403 behavior. The core purpose is front-loaded with no redundant filler.

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 two-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, formats, the content caveat, read-only safety, and error behavior. It does not specify the exact JSON/Markdown structure, but the schema and format enum make this adequate.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context that the export contains only render-grammar rules and that Markdown is for reading while JSON is for programmatic use, but it does not materially extend the already-detailed schema descriptions of 'slug' or 'format'.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('one interface style's full implementation export'), names the two formats (Markdown/JSON), and clarifies that the export contains only render-grammar rules. This clearly distinguishes it from listing tools and design-kit tools.

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?

It gives clear context: use this for the implementation export, combine it with a design kit's tokens/typography/motifs/brand rules, and notes the read-only, entitlement behavior. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools like get_design_md or get_tokens, so it stops short of a full 5.

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