Listar tipografías

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the read-only nature is established. The description adds value beyond annotations by clarifying a critical detail: the value stored in documents is the complete CSS family, not the short name displayed. It also discloses the inheritance behavior for nodes without 'font', which is useful operational context an agent needs to correctly set font values.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Each sentence earns its place: the first states what it returns and for what field, the second clarifies the storage format distinction (CSS family vs short name), and the third explains inheritance behavior. No filler or redundancy.

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 parameterless read-only listing tool with strong annotations, the description is nearly complete. It explains the return semantics (font families for the 'font' field), a critical storage-format caveat, and inheritance behavior. The only minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly state the return format (e.g., list of names vs objects), but with no output schema available and the tool being a simple listing, the description covers the essential context well.

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 0 parameters, so parameter semantics are trivially satisfied. Per the rubric, 0 params = baseline 4. The description appropriately focuses on the return values and their semantics rather than parameters, which is the relevant information for this parameterless listing tool.

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 what the tool does: 'Devuelve las familias tipográficas que ofrece Fluyo' (returns typography families offered by Fluyo). It specifies the resource (font families), the verb (returns/list), and adds scope by noting it's for the 'font' field of nodes and edges, distinguishing it from sibling list tools like list_icons, list_colors, and list_anims.

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 establishes clear usage context: these are the font families for the 'font' field of nodes and edges. It adds the important behavioral note that the stored value is the complete CSS family, not the short name, and that a node without 'font' inherits the global typography. It doesn't explicitly say when NOT to use it versus alternatives, but the purpose is sufficiently distinct from sibling list tools that this is a minor gap.

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