get_masters

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. 'Get' signals a read-only query, and the description explicitly lists the returned fields, making the tool's behavior predictable. It does not mention ordering, empty-result behavior, or potential data volume, but these are minor for a zero-parameter getter.

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: a one-sentence summary followed by a clear list of return fields. Every sentence earns its place, and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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 input parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides the necessary return contract: master ID, name, vertical metrics, and axis values. An agent can invoke and interpret the result without requiring additional context.

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 tool has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies because the description is not required to compensate for any schema coverage gap.

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 ('Get') and a specific resource ('all font masters'), and clarifies the relevant data (metrics and axis positions). This distinguishes it from sibling getters like get_font_info or get_glyph, which target different font objects.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no sibling alternative is mentioned. However, the description clearly implies that the tool is for retrieving master-level metrics and axis data, so the usage context is inferable.

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