font_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing. It does not say whether the result is app-wide or scoped to the document referenced by document_id, whether fonts are system or document fonts, or what fields come back; only the read-only nature is implied by the verb 'List'.

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 no filler, which is well matched to a simple list tool. It is arguably too terse given the family of font tools, but there is no wasted text.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description should at least clarify the scope of the listing (all installed fonts vs. fonts used/available in the specified document), and it does not. Combined with no annotations and no alternatives guidance, the definition leaves key invocation decisions unresolved.

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%: document_id is fully documented in the schema, including name-or-index semantics and the front-document default. The description adds nothing beyond that, 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 and resource ('List all available fonts'), which is clearly distinct from mutation siblings like font_change and font_glyph_insert. However, it never names or contrasts with the closer siblings font_find and font_missing_check, leaving the agent to infer the boundary itself.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given, and the description never mentions the alternatives font_find (search by criteria) or font_missing_check (missing-font audit) that sit in the same family. The agent gets no signal about which of the three to pick.

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