Get team styles

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail about pagination: 'Auto-paginates meta.cursor.after.' It also discloses the required OAuth scope, which goes beyond the structured annotations and helps an agent anticipate prerequisites.

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-loaded: endpoint and resource first, then pagination behavior, then scope. Every sentence earns its place; nothing is redundant or padded.

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-oriented read-only tool, the description covers the core invocation details: team path, published styles, automatic pagination, and authorization scope. With no output schema, the return shape is not explained, and the schema's zero required parameters leave room for ambiguity, but the main calling context is adequately described.

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 schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3; the tool description does not elaborate on team, team_id, page_size, or auto_paginate. The mention of auto-pagination clarifies the pagination mechanism and somewhat enriches the auto_paginate parameter, but it does not add per-parameter meaning for the others.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'GET /v1/teams/{team_id}/styles — published team library styles.' It clearly identifies the entity as team-scoped published library styles, distinguishing it from siblings like get_file_styles and get_team_components. The REST path and scope further pin down the exact operation.

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 when to use the tool by specifying 'published team library styles' and the team_library_content:read scope, but it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like get_team_components or get_file_styles. An agent can infer the use case from the resource type, but there is no direct when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance.

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