get_fonts

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already indicates a safe read operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral details: sorting by frequency descending, the exact output shape, and how mixed-font text is counted (one count per styled segment). This goes beyond the minimal safety info and enriches the agent's understanding of the tool's behavior.

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 sentence that front-loads the primary purpose, then provides essential output details and edge-case behavior. Every word earns its place: no filler, no repetition, and the structure is optimal for quick parsing by an agent.

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?

The tool is simple with no parameters and no output schema, but the description fully specifies the return shape, sorting order, and counting rule for mixed fonts. This covers all necessary contextual information for an agent to select and invoke the tool without ambiguity. The description is complete for the tool's complexity level.

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 zero parameters and 100% schema coverage (vacuously), the description carries no parameter burden. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on output semantics rather than parameter documentation. It fully satisfies the need for parameter clarity given there are none.

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 function: return every font on the current page with counts, sorted by frequency. It uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('every font used on the current page'), and the output format is explicitly defined. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_styles and get_variable_defs, which serve different resources.

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 when to use it: when you need a list of fonts with usage counts on the current page. It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Since the purpose is self-evident and distinct from siblings, this is clear context without exclusions, matching a score of 4.

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