co_list_styles

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent behavior, and the description adds a meaningful limitation: only names are exposed, not the contents of styles or presets. This helps set agent expectations about what the query can return.

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?

One compact sentence immediately states the output and then adds the key limitation. No filler, no repetition of the tool name, and the most decision-relevant detail is front-loaded.

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 zero-parameter read-only listing tool, the description covers scope and output shape well enough. It omits details like sorting or error behavior, but those are not essential given the simple nature and the annotations.

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?

The tool has zero parametersasi and an empty schema, so there is no parameter detail to add. The baseline of 3 applies because the description does not need to supplement any input definitions.

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 the exact output (names of styles and presets) and the product domain (Capture One). It is clearer than just the tool name, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling list tools such as co_list_recipes or co_list_documents.

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 guidance is provided about when to choose this tool over alternatives. The intended use is implied by the name and resource type, but the description does not mention exclusions, alternatives, or selection criteria.

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