style_pack_read

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 discloses the tool reads from a file, but does not mention behavior for missing files, invalid paths, or absence of blocks. The name 'read' suggests non-destructive operation, but additional details would improve transparency.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus a parameter line. It front-loads the purpose and includes necessary detail without any extraneous information. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the input and core functionality. For a simple read tool, it is mostly complete, though it could mention what happens if the file is not found or if no blocks exist.

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 single parameter 'path' is well-documented with the requirement of an absolute path and the acceptable targets (style.md file or directory containing it). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema, which only specifies a string type. While it could include more constraints, it is sufficiently clear.

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 reads STYLE_ and NEG_ blocks from a style.md file or project directory. The verb 'Read' and the specific resource distinguish it from siblings, which are all in different domains (audio, video, glitch, etc.).

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 implies usage when you need to retrieve style blocks from a style.md file, but it does not provide explicit when/when-not guidance or mention alternatives. Since no sibling tool has similar functionality, the implied context suffices but lacks explicit direction.

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