get_style_settings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a read operation ('Get') and mentions the source of the data (presets or user customization), which adds useful context. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error handling, leaving behavioral gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by clarifying details. Every sentence earns its place by adding context without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.

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?

Given the tool has 0 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a good job explaining what the tool retrieves and its relevance. However, it could be more complete by specifying the return format or any limitations, as there's no output schema to fall back on, leaving some contextual gaps.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds value by explaining what 'style settings' encompass (colors, design, spacing) and their origin, which provides semantic context beyond the empty schema. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as it compensates for the lack of parameters with meaningful information.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'current style settings', specifying what they include (colors, design, spacing). It distinguishes this from siblings by explaining these are actual values used in generation, not presets or templates, which helps differentiate from tools like 'get_active_preset' or 'list_style_presets'.

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 provides clear context by stating these settings are used when generating sections and can come from presets or user customization, which implies usage for retrieving applied styles. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'get_active_preset' or 'detect_style_preset', missing explicit exclusions or comparisons.

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