get_fill_and_stroke

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'gets' data, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't confirm if it's safe or has side effects. It also doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens with invalid node IDs, leaving significant behavioral gaps for a tool that queries multiple nodes.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without any wasted words. It directly communicates the tool's function in a clear and structured manner, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate for a read operation. It specifies what data is retrieved but lacks details on return format, error handling, or performance considerations. For a tool that queries potentially multiple nodes, more context on output structure or limitations would improve completeness.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly explaining the two parameters (nodeId and nodeIds) and their mutual exclusivity. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Gets fill and/or stroke color(s) and stroke weight for one or more nodes.' It specifies the action (gets), the resources (fill/stroke colors, stroke weight), and the target (nodes). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_node_style' or 'get_vector', which might retrieve similar style properties, so it misses full sibling distinction.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'get_node_style' or 'get_vector', which could also retrieve style-related data. This lack of context leaves the agent without clear usage direction.

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