Get the complete stylesheet

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds valuable context about the content (four themes, three densities, all layers) and its purpose, exceeding what the annotations alone provide.

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 with no filler. The first sentence efficiently lists the stylesheet contents, and the second highlights its purpose. Every word earns its place.

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 simple read-only retrieval tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is quite complete. It explains the return scope and provides usage context, though it does not specify the exact output format (e.g., CSS text vs. file download).

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 schema description covers the sole parameter 'include' with 100% documentation, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond listing the layers, which the schema already enumerates.

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 the entire Sekura stylesheet as one file, enumerating its contents (tokens, reset, prose, utilities, components). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_tokens or get_foundation by emphasizing this is the single artefact needed for any interface.

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 phrase 'This is the single artefact needed to render any Sekura interface' provides a clear when-to-use directive. It implies that this tool is for complete stylesheet requests, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions.

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