List Plot Styles

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

With only readOnlyHint available in annotations, the description carries the behavioral load well: it explains the two-source model (`source: "installed"`), that `installed` is `null` headlessly because there is no installation to scan, that the catalogue must not be treated as evidence of installation, and that the tool never refuses and degrades gracefully on an unreadable Preferences object. That is exactly the kind of degradation and edge-case context an agent needs.

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?

Three sentences, all information-dense, with the live-vs-headless distinction front-loaded. The opening subordinate clause is a slightly awkward way to start — a plain 'Lists plot style (CTB) files…' would front-load the purpose better — but nothing here is filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is not required, yet the description still clarifies the meaning of the `installed` and `source` fields and their headless behavior. Combined with readOnlyHint and an empty input schema, nothing needed to invoke or interpret this tool is missing.

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. There are no parameter semantics to clarify, and none are claimed.

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 identifies the resource precisely: the CTB plot-style catalogue AutoCAD ships plus (on the live engine) files actually present in the printer style sheet path. It never states the verb cleanly in a leading sentence, relying on the tool name/title, but the resources and the two data sources are unambiguous enough to distinguish it from siblings like layout_list or page_setup_list.

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?

Usage is implied — you call this to see which plot styles are available — but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of alternatives such as page_setup_list or batch_plot, and no preconditions. An agent can infer the context but gets no routing guidance.

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