get_kerning

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It transparently documents defaults (empty master_id = first master, left = all, limit 0 = all), the left-glyph filtering behavior, and provides a performance hint for large fonts. It does not describe the return format, but the core query behavior is clear.

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 compact, front-loaded with the main purpose, and uses a clean Args block where each line adds value. No redundant or filler content is present.

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 tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers all invocation-relevant details: defaults, filtering, and performance behavior. A brief note on the return shape would make it fully complete, but nothing needed to call the tool correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully explain parameters. It does: master_id selects the master, left filters by glyph/group name, and limit caps results with meaningful defaults and a concrete usage recommendation. This fully compensates for the absent schema descriptions.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get kerning pairs for a specific master'. It also clarifies default behavior (first master if not specified) and is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like set_kerning_pair, delete_kerning_pair, and auto_kern.

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 usage through its parameter guidance, such as 'Use limit=50 for large fonts', but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like analyze_kerning or get_font_info. The intended context is inferable but not directly articulated.

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