Conduit

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by detailing the return structure ('Array of objects... with CSS properties as JSON'), which isn't covered by annotations. Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and edgeCaseWarnings, so the bar is lower. The description complements this with output format specifics, enhancing transparency without contradicting annotations.

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 concise and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose ('Get CSS properties from a node.') followed by return details. Both sentences are relevant and add value, with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating purpose and returns more clearly, but it remains efficient.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose and return format, while annotations handle behavioral hints and examples. Without an output schema, the description's return details are valuable. It could improve by mentioning error cases or sibling differentiation, but it's largely adequate for the context.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema fully documents both parameters ('nodeId' and 'format'), including descriptions and enum values. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3. No compensation is needed given the high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get CSS properties from a node.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('CSS properties from a node'), making the action clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_node_style' or 'get_html', which might also retrieve style-related information, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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?

The description provides implied usage through the return format details, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_node_style' or 'get_html'. The annotations include 'extraInfo' suggesting use for 'code generation or inspection', which adds some context, but the description itself doesn't offer clear when/when-not instructions or name specific siblings for comparison.

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