sei_estilos

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds value by detailing categories and conventions, and explaining that omitting parameters returns shortcuts. It does not contradict annotations.

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 the purpose and includes necessary details like categories and conventions. Every sentence adds value, but it is slightly longer than necessary; still, it is well structured and not verbose.

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 simplicity of the tool (one optional parameter, no required params) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter behavior, and formatting conventions comprehensively. No gaps remain.

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 input schema has one parameter 'categoria' with no description (0% coverage). The description fully compensates by listing the valid categories ('texto', 'titulo', 'lista', 'tabela', 'destaque', 'todos') and explaining behavior when the parameter is omitted.

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 that the tool lists available CSS styles for formatting documents, and specifically says to use it to discover the correct class for each paragraph type. It distinguishes from sibling tools which handle processes, documents, units, 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 explains when to use the tool (to find CSS classes) and provides a hint about behavior without parameters (returns quick shortcuts). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though the context is clear.

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