list_carousel_styles

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that this is a reference catalog whose output is a set of ids meant to be fed into render_carousel, plus that palette colors come back resolved rather than as raw references. It does not describe response size or the static/account-agnostic nature of the catalog, which would have been useful.

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, front-loaded with the payload inventory and closed with the downstream action. The parenthetical qualifiers ('with content-variant layouts', 'with resolved colors') add real information rather than padding. The list is dense but each item maps to a return category, so nothing is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly takes on the burden of naming the returned categories: template families, palettes, formats, font pairings, slide caps. It does not state the top-level response shape or how large the catalog is (e.g. number of template families), which is the only remaining gap for a zero-parameter lookup tool.

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?

With zero parameters there is no parameter semantics to explain, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description appropriately spends its space on what the tool returns instead of inventing arguments.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('List') against a named resource ('the carousel design system') and then enumerates its contents: template families, palette library with resolved colors, output formats, font pairings, slide caps. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like generate_carousel, render_carousel, and get_carousel_render, which produce or fetch renders rather than catalog metadata.

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?

'Use the ids with render_carousel' tells the agent where this tool fits in the workflow: call it first to obtain valid identifiers, then render. No explicit exclusions or 'when not to use' guidance is given, and it doesn't mention whether it should also precede generate_carousel, but the intended consumption path is clear.

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