custom_css_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. Beyond implying read-only via 'Read', it says nothing about permissions or scope needed, what happens when no custom CSS is configured, or what the response looks like — and it hardcodes a store ID (123456789), which is ambiguous if the agent operates on other stores.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The hardcoded store number is the only questionable element, as it may be static context rather than an argument to the tool.

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-required-parameter read tool this is close, but with no output schema and no annotations the description should say at least what the return value is (raw CSS text? empty when unset?) and whether version_id selects a historical version. Those gaps matter for correct invocation.

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 100% and the single optional version_id parameter is documented there, including its default (987654321) and the sibling tool to source it from. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (Read) and resource (the store's custom CSS) and even names the UI location it corresponds to. It competes clearly with custom_css_update and custom_js_get, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, no mention of the read/write pairing with custom_css_update, and no note about which store/version context applies. The intended usage is only inferable from the verb 'Read'.

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