Guía del estilo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a read operation ('Devuelve') and the shape of the returned content, which is useful, but says nothing about permissions, whether a style must exist, or how 'name' resolves when omitted (that detail lives only in the schema). Adequate but incomplete for an unannotated tool.

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?

Front-loads purpose, then a usage directive, then the section enum — a logical order with no wasted sentences. Slightly dense parenthetical but still efficient.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description usefully enumerates what is returned, states the pre-design workflow, and documents the section enum. Only the 'name' parameter semantics remain thin, which keeps it from a 5.

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 coverage is 50%. The description explains the 'section' parameter well by listing the enum values and stating it limits the returned slice, but the 'name' parameter's meaning (defaulting to the active asset) is left to the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given partial coverage and partial compensation.

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 and resource ('Devuelve la guía de un estilo') and enumerates the returned content (palette, typography, presets, recipes, rules), so the agent knows exactly what this tool produces. It does not, however, differentiate itself from close siblings like ps_style_list or ps_style_analyze, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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?

Gives a clear workflow directive — read before designing and follow the rules — which is stronger than mere implied usage. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusion conditions (e.g., when to call ps_style_list instead), so it is clear context without routing.

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