ass_get_style

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does reasonably well: it discloses that include_glyphs runs an approximate fontconfig-based check, that sample_text defaults to the plain text of lines using the style capped at 2000 characters, and that font resolution exposes substitution state. It doesn't state read-only status or permission requirements explicitly, but the inspection nature is evident.

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 purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, and the Args/Returns blocks are well organized. The detailed Returns enumeration is somewhat verbose given an output schema already exists, but it remains useful and non-repetitive.

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 moderately complex inspection tool, the definition covers parameters, defaults, side behaviors (glyph check), and return shape. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly, and the output schema covers the structured return.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates: it defines name (case-insensitive), doc_id (None = current document), include_glyphs (adds a glyphs report), and sample_text (default source and 2000-char cap). Every parameter is given meaning beyond the bare schema types.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb (inspect) and resource (one style) plus the distinguishing feature (font resolution). It clearly separates from the plural sibling ass_list_styles and from ass_style_usage/ass_style_for_line, since it targets a single named style.

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 by the Args (name required, doc_id optional) but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing against alternatives like ass_style_usage, ass_check_font_substitution, or ass_list_styles. The reader must infer the use case.

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