Hole Global Styles

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation by saying 'Gets', but it does not disclose whether the result is a raw theme.json, merged with defaults, or any side effects. It also does not describe the response format.

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, concise sentence that directly states the purpose without any filler. It is perfectly sized for a tool with no parameters and minimal complexity.

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 no-parameter getter, the description is minimally viable but lacks detail. It does not mention what the output schema contains, nor does it compare with the presumably similar design_get_theme_json tool. Given the presence of an output schema, the description could have briefly specified what the response includes.

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 according to the criteria the baseline is 4. The description adds meaningful context by clarifying that 'global styles' refers to 'theme.json settings', which aids understanding even though there are no parameters to document.

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's action ('Gets') and resource ('global styles (theme.json settings)'), making it understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool design_get_theme_json, which likely serves a similar purpose, preventing a perfect score.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the existence of design_get_theme_json and other design tools, the description should have mentioned when to prefer this tool, but it provides no contextual usage direction.

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