get_styles

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description bears the full behavioral burden. "Возвращает" implies a read-only, non-destructive operation and the parenthetical discloses what the response contains, but nothing is said about permissions, failure modes, or whether the style list can be large.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the return shape and use case packed into a compact parenthetical. No filler or redundancy.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description compensates well by describing the returned id→name/description/type mapping. Only minor gaps remain, such as whether styles are file-scoped only or include published/library styles.

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?

There is a single required parameter, fileKey, and schema coverage is 100% with a description already present. The tool description adds no further meaning about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ("Возвращает метаданные стилей файла") and even sketches the return shape (id → имя/описание/тип). It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming get_node_tree as the source whose values it enriches, so an agent can place it relative to get_variables and get_components without opening the schema.

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?

It states a concrete use case — mapping ids from get_node_tree to human-readable names — which implies when to call it. However, it offers no explicit alternatives or exclusions, e.g. it never says to use get_variables for variables or get_components for components instead, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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