Conduit

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and edgeCaseWarnings. The description adds value by specifying the return format (array of objects with type and text fields) and clarifying it's for analyzing style runs, which goes beyond annotations. No contradiction with 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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a concise specification of the return format. Every sentence adds necessary information without waste, making it efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.

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, read-only operation), annotations provide rich details (edgeCaseWarnings, usageExamples), and the description adds return format clarification. However, there is no output schema, and the description could benefit from more detail on output structure or error handling, though annotations partially compensate.

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 description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for nodeId (format, purpose) and property (enum values). The description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how property selection affects output or nodeId validation details, so it meets the baseline for high 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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'text segments with specific styling in a text node', specifying it analyzes style runs within text nodes. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_text_style (which likely gets overall text styles) or get_node_info (general node info), making the purpose specific and differentiated.

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 for analyzing style runs for advanced formatting, and annotations provide extraInfo reinforcing this context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_text_style or get_node_style, though annotations include edgeCaseWarnings that help with prerequisites (e.g., node must be a valid text node).

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