get_styles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does add real behavioral context: pagination is per style type, each response defaults to 500, and the total* counters report full counts. It stops short of stating auth/permission needs or how the style objects themselves are shaped.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the core purpose front-loaded ahead of the paging mechanics. The backtick-heavy enumeration of the four total* fields is slightly dense but earns its place by explaining the return shape.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully discloses the four count fields an agent will receive. Combined with clear pagination semantics for a two-optional-parameter read tool, this is nearly complete; missing only deeper detail on the returned style entries themselves.

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 100% and both parameters are documented there ('Max styles of each type (default 500)', 'Skip this many (default 0)'). The description restates the same defaults and the per-type scoping, adding essentially no syntax or edge-case detail beyond the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get information about local styles'), and the word 'local' narrows scope meaningfully. However, it does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as get_style_guide or list_animation_styles, so an agent must 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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer this is the tool for enumerating design styles, and the paging note hints at large collections. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not, and no alternative tool is named (e.g. get_style_guide, import_style_by_key).

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