List interface styles

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that the tool is read-only and free, that it returns judgment summaries with no export payload, and that Pro records appear without exposing their contents. This gives the agent a precise picture of side effects and access characteristics.

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 front-loaded with 'Browse interface styles' and each sentence earns its place: definition, differentiation, usage context, return behavior, and note on Free/Pro. It is detailed without being redundant, and no sentence is wasted.

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 list tool with 5 filter parameters and no output schema, the description is highly complete. It explains the return format (judgment summaries, no export payload), guides the next step (call get_interface_style), and covers the Free/Pro access model. The schema handles parameter syntax, so the description fills in all contextual gaps.

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 value beyond the schema by explaining that Pro records appear in the list without exposing their contents, clarifying the tier parameter's behavior. It also frames the return as judgment summaries, which helps the agent understand what filters will yield.

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+resource ('Browse interface styles') and clearly defines what a style is: a neutral render grammar that decides how surfaces and hierarchy render. It also distinguishes styles from themes/palettes/brand rules and from the companion get_interface_style tool, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 gives an explicit when-to-use scenario ('Use one when the kit is settled but the layout still defaults to generic cards on a grid') and an explicit alternative ('pick a slug and call get_interface_style for the implementable version'). It also clarifies what the tool is not for ('not a second source of palettes, fonts, or brand rules'), providing clear when-not guidance.

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