Hole Typografie-Einstellungen

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

The verb 'Holt' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that there are no side effects or describe the return format. Since no annotations are provided, the description bears the full burden, yet it only covers the basic action and content, leaving safety and behavioral details unstated.

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 a single, lean sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It enumerates the exact categories returned and wastes no words, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is fairly complete: it states what settings are retrieved and itemizes the categories. However, it doesn't clarify whether these settings come from the active theme, customizer, or theme.json, which leaves a slight ambiguity given related sibling tools.

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 parameters, so there are no semantics to clarify. The description correctly aligns with the empty schema. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and this description exposes nothing misleading, so the score is appropriate.

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 action ('Holt' = gets) and the resource ('alle Typografie-Einstellungen'), then enumerates what's included (font families, sizes, weights). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like design_get_color_palette or design_get_spacing, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as design_get_customizer_settings, design_get_theme_json, or elementor_get_global_fonts. It lacks any context about selection criteria or exclusions, so the agent must infer based solely on the name and sibling list.

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