Styles: List Dimension Styles

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

With only `readOnlyHint` available from annotations, the description adds substantial behavioral context: headless mode returns DXF-stored values, live engine values are only readable for the current style, other rows return `values: null` and `values_available: false`, and the tool never refuses on an open drawing. This is exactly the kind of operational quirk an agent needs before calling the tool.

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 what the tool returns and then adds the important live-engine caveats. It is somewhat dense and lists all seventeen variables even though an output schema exists, but the information earns its place and the structure supports scanning.

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 a zero-argument, read-only list tool with an output schema and only `readOnlyHint` in annotations, the description supplies the critical missing context about headless vs live behavior and null values. It does not need to explain return values because the output schema covers them.

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 tool has zero input parameters, so there is nothing for the description to document beyond what the schema already shows. Baseline 4 is appropriate because parameter semantics are simply not applicable.

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 exactly what the tool returns: every DIMSTYLE table entry together with the seventeen preset dimension variables. It also distinguishes the tool from `dimstyle_set_current` by explaining how live-engine value reading differs. An agent can identify this as a dimension-style listing tool 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 gives an explicit alternative for the live engine case: `dimstyle_set_current` must be used to make a style current if the agent needs its `values`. It does not explicitly state the general when-to-use condition, but the purpose makes that evident and the key when-not/alternative is documented.

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