get_style

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the tool as read-only (retrieve) and lists the return content. No side effects or auth requirements are mentioned, but for a simple retrieval, this is transparent enough. No contradictions.

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 two sentences, each earning its place: first states purpose and return content, second lists valid slugs. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with essential information.

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 single-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what the tool does, what it returns (including specific sections), and the valid inputs. No gaps remain for the agent to infer.

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% with a descriptive parameter. The description adds the list of 30 valid slugs beyond the schema's brief example, providing concrete enumeration that helps the agent select valid inputs.

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 tool retrieves structured design style tokens for AI content generation, lists the specific sections returned (name, description, color palette, typography, mood, visual directives, negative prompt), and distinguishes from the sibling 'recommend_style' by focusing on retrieving known style tokens rather than recommending.

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 implies use when a specific style's full definition is needed, and lists 30 valid slugs. While no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative is given, the context of sibling 'recommend_style' suggests that tool is for recommendations. Clear context but lacks exclusions.

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