Conduit

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and edgeCaseWarnings about invalid nodes and return format. The description adds value by specifying the return structure 'Array of { nodeId, styles } objects, one per node' which clarifies the output organization beyond what annotations state about 'even for single'.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste: first states purpose with concrete examples, second specifies return format. Perfectly front-loaded with the core functionality, then essential output detail.

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 read-only tool with good annotations covering safety and edge cases, the description is adequate but incomplete. The major gap is parameter documentation (0% schema coverage with no description compensation). Without output schema, the return format description is helpful but minimal.

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 0% schema description coverage for 2 parameters, the description provides no information about nodeId/nodeIds parameters. It doesn't explain what format node IDs should be, whether both parameters can be used together, or their relationship. The description fails to compensate for the schema coverage gap.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'all style properties for one or more nodes', with specific examples of what properties are included (fills, strokes, effects, text styles, style IDs). It distinguishes from siblings like get_fill_and_stroke (subset) and get_text_style (text-specific).

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 implies usage context by specifying 'for one or more nodes' and the annotations provide explicit extraInfo 'Use this command to inspect all style properties'. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives beyond what's implied by the property list.

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