style_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that results include inherited formatting and heading level, but says nothing about behavior when the id/name is not found, whether name matching is case-insensitive, or how inheritance is resolved.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with a colon-separated list of returned fields and zero filler. It is a sentence fragment rather than a full clause, but nothing is wasted and the key scoping word 'One' leads.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description does cover the main return content (own formatting, inherited formatting, heading level), which is what an agent most needs to decide whether to call it. Gaps remain around failure behavior and inheritance resolution, but the core is present.

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 100% and both parameters are documented there (doc = path to the .docx, style = style id or name). The description's 'by id or name' merely restates the schema and adds no extra syntax or format guidance, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (get) and resource (style) with scope narrowed to 'One style by id or name', and enumerates what the result contains (own formatting, inherited formatting, heading level). This clearly separates it from the plural styles_list and from mutating siblings like style_update/style_rename, though it does not name any sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied by the singular 'One style' phrasing: read a single style rather than the full set. There is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no mention of the alternative (styles_list) or of prerequisites such as the document needing to be open.

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