list_styles

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that data comes from a cache (with a refresh option) and indicates a dependency on scan_document. However, it does not detail cache miss behavior or potential side effects of refreshing, leaving some gaps.

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 concise sentences with no redundancy. Front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidance. Every sentence adds value.

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 simple listing tool, the description provides essential context: what it returns, when to use, and how to apply styles. It lacks return format details and timeout explanation, but the absence of an output schema and the tool's simplicity keep the score high.

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 67%, with descriptions for refresh and styleKind. The description adds meaning to these (cache vs refresh, style kinds) but says nothing about timeoutSec. Baseline 3 applies since the description partially compensates but not fully.

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 lists paragraph, character, and object styles from the Document Model cache or refreshes from InDesign. This specific verb-resource pairing distinguishes it from siblings like apply_style or create_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?

Explicitly instructs to prefer using after scan_document and names apply_style / execute_batch as alternatives for applying styles. This provides clear when-to-use and alternative guidance.

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