list_visual_properties

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the output contents: property type, enum values, numeric min/max, and both common and visual-specific cards. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, but 'List' and the output-focused description imply a non-mutating discovery operation.

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 three focused sentences. The first sentence states the action and scope, the second details the output fields, and the third explains the tool's relationship to set_visual_format. Every sentence adds value and there is no filler.

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 single-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it explains what is listed, what properties each entry reports, and why the tool matters. It does not mention visualType validation or error behavior, but those are not essential for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema already fully describes the only parameter (visualType) with examples, providing 100% coverage. The description adds that this parameter selects the complete formatting surface (common + visual-specific), but it does not add syntax, format, or constraint details beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('List ALL formatting cards and their properties') and names the resource ('for one visualType'), clearly distinguishing it from related set/get/validate visual tools. It frames the tool as the 'complete discovery surface' for set_visual_format, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: before set_visual_format, to discover what formatting properties are available for a visual type. It also scopes usage to one visualType. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion cases, so it stops short of a 5.

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