get_styles

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It declares 'Read-only,' explains that inherited values are not synthesized and must be followed via based_on, and documents that exact/atLeast line spacing and theme font/color references are omitted. These are concrete behavioral constraints beyond the schema.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: scope, returned fields, shape compatibility, cloning workflow, inherited-value behavior, omission caveat, and read-only status. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and uses subsequent sentences for essential caveats.

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 a one-parameter schema and an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs to invoke correctly: what is listed, what is omitted, what is not synthesized, and the safety profile. It is complete for a read-only list tool.

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 has only one parameter, file_path, with no description and 0% schema coverage. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description adds no guidance about path semantics or expected document context. It does not compensate for the low schema coverage, though the simplicity of the parameter limits the practical impact.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource ('List the styles defined in the document') and enumerates the exact fields returned (id, name, type, based_on, formatting). It clearly distinguishes this read tool from sibling style-writing tools like define_style and apply_style by framing the output in terms of what define_style accepts.

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 gives clear context: it is for reading style definitions, and for template cloning it explicitly notes 'one read + one define.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the define_style relationship and inheritance caveat give an agent enough guidance to choose it appropriately.

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