style_getReads current style settings from a MuseScore score and returns default values for keys not explicitly set, so you can inspect layout styles before adjusting them.
今の版のスタイル値（score_style.mss）を読む。譜面に書かれていないキーは既定値を返す。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| keys | Yes | ||
| score_id | Yes | score_open が返した score_id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it contributes one genuinely useful behavioral fact: keys absent from the score return their default values, so absence is not an error. It does not disclose the return shape (key→value mapping?), whether the read is scoped to 'now' version only, or any permission expectations.
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 short sentences, zero waste, with the resource identified first and the default-value caveat second. Nothing padding and nothing redundant.
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 two-parameter getter this is close to sufficient, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description should say what comes back (a mapping of requested keys to values) and how to discover valid key names. Those two gaps keep it at minimum-viable.
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 50% and the undocumented parameter is the important one: `keys`. The description implies they are style key names but gives no format, no naming convention, and no pointer to style_list as a way to discover valid keys, nor any note about the 1–100 item bound. Only the score_id parameter is documented, and that is in the schema, not the description.
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?
Specific verb + resource pair: reads the current version's style values, and it names the underlying artifact (score_style.mss). An agent can tell this apart from style_set (write) without opening the schema, but the description never explicitly contrasts with style_list or style_set.
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?
No explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use or named alternative, but the read semantics are strongly implied by '読む', which combined with the sibling names style_set and style_list makes the correct choice reasonably inferable. Guidance is left implicit rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.