get_styles

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this as safe, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail by specifying the structure of the returned data (grouping and per-style properties). It covers the primary behavior without contradicting the annotation.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes just enough detail to be useful. Every clause adds value without repetition or filler.

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 (no params, no output schema), and the description fully explains what is returned and how it is structured. There are no obvious gaps; the details provided are sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's output.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to explain. The baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the return structure rather than parameter usage.

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 states a specific action ('Return') and a specific resource ('the document's local styles'), then enumerates the exact grouping ('paints, texts, effects, grids') and what each group carries. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_motion_styles or style-mutation tools.

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 makes the context clear: if you need the document's local styles, this is the tool. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is so specific that a user wouldn't confuse it with other style-related tools. No when-not guidance is given.

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