webforge_list_styles

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral context. It states it 'List all available design styles with basic information', which implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, but doesn't disclose potential limitations like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'basic information' entails. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('List all available design styles') and adds clarifying detail ('with basic information'). There is no wasted text, and it directly communicates the tool's purpose without 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?

Given the complexity is low (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects like return format, pagination, or error handling, which are crucial for a listing tool. Without annotations or output schema, the description should compensate more to guide the agent effectively.

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, and schema description coverage is 100% (though trivial since there are no parameters). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools. No additional value is required or provided beyond the empty schema.

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 the verb ('List') and resource ('design styles'), specifying it returns 'all available' items with 'basic information'. It distinguishes from siblings like webforge_get_style_details (which likely provides detailed info) and webforge_list_palettes/projects (different resources). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with webforge_recommend_design, which might overlap in 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose this over webforge_get_style_details (for basic vs. detailed info) or webforge_recommend_design (for listing vs. recommendation). The description implies a general listing function but lacks explicit context or exclusions.

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