get_vibes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It accurately describes the tool's purpose (listing identifiers) and its non-destructive, read-only nature. However, it doesn't mention any potential pagination or error cases, but given the simplicity (zero parameters, no complex behavior), the description is sufficient.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose ('List available vibe identifiers') and immediately follows with usage guidance. Every word contributes meaning.

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 has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is complete for its simplicity. It explains what the tool returns and how to use the result. There's no missing information for an agent to invoke it 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 has zero parameters, so the burden on description to explain parameters is minimal. The description adds value by explaining the purpose of the output (identifiers for vibe_id), which is not in the schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3, and the description's added context raises it to 4.

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 identifies the tool as listing identifiers for visual styles, with a specific verb ('list') and resource ('vibe identifiers'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_themes by specifying 'visual style of generated decks', which is a unique purpose.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use this before setting vibe_id on generate_presentation or create_slide.' This provides clear context on its role in a workflow and indicates it's a prerequisite step, which is excellent guidance.

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