Get file styles

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds a concrete auth scope ('library_content:read') and clarifies that only published styles are returned, which is useful beyond the structured annotations. However, it does not disclose response shape, pagination, or any limits.

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 compact and front-loads the endpoint and primary purpose before including the scope requirement. It wastes no words, though it could have packed slightly more utility into the same space.

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 (one param, read-only annotations, no output schema), so the description is nearly sufficient. It does not describe the return value format or clarify what 'styles' includes (e.g., metadata fields), but with low complexity and strong schema coverage, the gap is not critical.

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% for the single 'file' parameter, with the schema already explaining that it accepts a file key or URL. The description adds nothing beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 title 'Get file styles' together with 'published styles in a file library' clearly identifies the resource (published styles) and the scope (a single file library). It is reasonably distinguishable from siblings like get_team_styles and get_style, though it does not explicitly name them.

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 does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_style, get_team_styles, or get_file_components. It only mentions the OAuth scope and the file-library context, leaving the selection decision to the agent.

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