Typography

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

The description explains the three actions' behaviors: 'suggest' generates pairings, 'install' downloads and installs fonts, and 'auto-size' calculates sizes. It also notes that auto-size reads document dimensions if not provided. Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which align with the non-destructive nature of font installation. The description adds context beyond 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 three sentences: an introduction followed by a bullet-like list of actions. It is concise, front-loaded, and every sentence provides essential information without redundancy.

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 description adequately explains the three actions and their associated parameters. While there is no output schema, the description gives enough context for an agent to select the correct action. Minor gaps include lack of details on return values (e.g., what 'suggest' returns beyond a pairing description).

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 100%, and the description groups parameters by action (e.g., 'mood' and 'purpose' for suggest, 'fontName' for install, 'documentWidth'/'documentHeight' for auto-size). This adds semantic context beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions, helping the agent understand which parameters are relevant for each action.

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 is for 'font pairing, installation, and size recommendations' and lists three specific actions: suggest, install, auto-size. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ps_color or ps_apply_filter, which handle different design aspects.

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 each action (e.g., 'suggest' for font pairing, 'install' for downloading fonts), but it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternative tools. For instance, it could clarify that ps_update_text is for text editing rather than typography setup.

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