css_media_queries

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of explaining the tool's behavior. It clearly states that the tool lists media queries, which is a read-only, non-destructive operation. However, it doesn't disclose any additional behavioral details such as output format or scope limitations beyond 'across all stylesheets', which is adequate but not rich.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Every word earns its place, and it is immediately clear what the tool does.

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?

The tool is simple with no parameters and no output schema, so the description carries the burden of telling the agent what to expect. The statement 'list all media queries used across all stylesheets' is complete for a simple list operation, but it could speculatively mention the output structure or note that it returns a list of query strings. It is adequate for the low complexity, hence a 4.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline for this dimension is 4. The description adds no parameter meanings since none exist, and there is no need for compensation. The input schema is trivially covered at 100%.

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 uses a specific verb ('list') and clearly identifies the resource ('all media queries used across all stylesheets'). It distinguishes itself from sibling CSS tools by focusing specifically on media queries, which none of the siblings do directly.

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?

Usage is implied by the description: an agent would use this tool when needing to inspect media queries. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. This is minimal but acceptable for a simple, self-explanatory tool.

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