list_styles

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

The description implies a read-only operation ('list') with no side effects. No annotations are present, but the behavior is straightforward. It does not disclose any hidden traits beyond the action of listing.

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 very short (one sentence) but lacks essential information about the filtering parameter. It is concise but at the expense of completeness.

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 simple list tool, the description is incomplete. It does not mention the optional filtering by styleType, and there is no output schema to clarify the return format. It leaves the agent unaware of the filtering capability.

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 defines one parameter 'styleType' with an enum and default, but the description does not mention it. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain the parameter, but it fails to do so.

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 'List all available styles in the document' clearly states the verb (list) and resource (styles). It is specific but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_color_swatches or create_paragraph_style. However, the resource is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description simply states what it does without usage direction.

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