design_get_style

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Get full details' implies a read-only retrieval, which is useful, but it does not explain what 'full details' includes, how invalid IDs are handled, or any permissions or side-effect constraints.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently states the operation, resource, entity types, and lookup key.

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?

The two-parameter schema is fully documented, so invocation is clear for this low-complexity getter. However, with no output schema, the description does not specify what 'full details' actually returns, leaving a meaningful gap for downstream use.

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%, so the schema already documents both required parameters. The description restates that lookup is by ID and that kind covers movement, artist, or media, but adds no format, constraints, or examples beyond what the schema 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 and resource: 'Get full details for a specific art movement, artist, or media type by ID.' That clearly defines the operation and entity scope. It does not distinguish this from close siblings such as design_search_styles or design_get_style_palette, so it is not a 5.

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-to-use guidance. It does not say to use this instead of design_search_styles when an ID is already known, nor when design_get_style_palette or design_get_style_timeline is more appropriate. Only 'by ID' hints at the context.

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