Styles: List Multileader Styles

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds real behavioral context beyond that: values are available on both engines, sourced from the MLEADERSTYLE object headless and from AcadMLeaderStyle dictionary items live (because ActiveX exposes no collection property), with a values_available: true marker. This is meaningful engine-dependent disclosure, though it omits return/pagination details.

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?

Front-loads the outcome ('Every MLEADERSTYLE with its four values on both engines') before the engine internals. The ActiveX/dictionary detail is dense but earns its place for a tool whose only real complexity is engine behavior.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the readOnly annotation covers safety. The description supplies the engine-specific sourcing an agent would otherwise lack; only explicit alternative-routing guidance is absent.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies a no-argument full listing with nothing to filter.

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?

States the resource precisely ('Every MLEADERSTYLE with its four values') and the scope (both engines), so an agent knows this is a read of all multileader style definitions. It is distinguishable from siblings like textstyle_list/dimstyle_list by the MLEADERSTYLE resource, though the verb 'list' is only implied rather than stated.

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?

There is no explicit 'use this when' or when-not guidance, but the closing note that leader_create_mleader can override any value implies the inspection/creation workflow. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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