スタイルのキー一覧

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the return payload fields, the default cardinality (~60), the full searchable universe (1972), and version pinning (v4.7.6). Read-only nature is implied by '返す' but not stated explicitly, and no pagination/limit behavior is mentioned.

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 tight sentences with no waste: the return shape is front-loaded, then default-vs-query behavior. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description adequately characterizes the returned fields (type, unit, default, description) and the dataset size. The only real gap is the undocumented category filter.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains query fully (searches names and descriptions across all 1972 entries), but the category parameter is completely unaddressed in both schema and description. Half the parameters remain opaque.

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?

States a specific verb (返す = returns) and resource (レイアウトに効くスタイルのキー / style keys affecting layout), plus the exact version (v4.7.6 Sid). It clearly describes what comes back (type, unit, default, description). It does not contrast itself with the sibling style_get, so sibling differentiation is missing.

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?

It usefully explains the default behavior (~60 common keys) versus the query behavior (search across all 1972), which is real usage guidance. But it never names style_get as the alternative for fetching a single key, and there are no explicit when-not-to-use conditions.

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