assets-get-google-font-families

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It discloses that the tool connects to the Google API, implying an external network call, but does not discuss potential issues like latency, rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether the operation is read-only. The description adds some value but leaves significant gaps.

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 three sentences long and front-loaded with the core action. It is concise and each sentence adds value: main purpose, external call, and distinction from project fonts. However, the grammar could be slightly improved (e.g., 'get the list' vs 'gets the list').

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and a key limitation. However, it does not explain the return format (e.g., array of family names or objects), pagination, or error scenarios. The description is adequate but not complete.

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 1 parameter (filter) with 100% coverage, so the schema already documents its meaning. The description does not add any additional semantic information beyond what is in the schema. Thus, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 it gets the Google Fonts list of families, specifying it connects to the Google API. It also distinguishes itself from project-specific fonts by noting that it doesn't provide fonts available in the project, which helps differentiate from sibling tools like assets-get-available-asset-packs. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the closely related sibling assets-get-google-font-info.

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 implicitly advises when not to use this tool (not for project fonts) and where to find that information (check asset packs). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like assets-get-google-font-info, which might be confused for specific font details. There is no mention of prerequisites or conditions.

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