list_styles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the tool lists style definitions, but omits critical details such as whether it is read-only, what happens if no document is open, or the structure of the output. The abbreviations 'charPr' and 'paraPr' may be unclear to some agents.

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 a single sentence with no superfluous words, efficiently communicating the core purpose. However, it is too terse and could benefit from additional context without becoming verbose.

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?

Despite having one parameter and an output schema (not detailed here), the description lacks essential context such as the return format, error scenarios, and the exact meaning of 'charPr/paraPr'. The agent cannot reliably determine how to use the tool or interpret its results.

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 0% description coverage for the 'path' parameter, and the tool description does not explain its meaning or format. The parameter's role is completely unspecified, forcing the agent to guess whether it refers to a document file path or an internal path to styles.

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 uses specific verb 'List' and resource 'charPr/paraPr style definitions', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools which focus on other operations. The phrase 'in the document' implies the current open document, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it specify prerequisites or conditions. It simply states the action without any contextual usage advice.

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