list_styles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the list is 'canonical' and that it represents what the 'site exposes', conveying its authoritative scope. Being a read-only retrieval operation with no side effects, the description provides sufficient transparency without needing to mention auth or rate limits.

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, well-formed sentence that gets straight to the point. The parenthetical '(Soora FR)' adds minimal context without bloating the text. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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, parameterless, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent exactly what the tool returns (canonical list of styles/presets) and is sufficient for selection. The low complexity means no additional context is needed.

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 tool has zero parameters, which earns a baseline of 4 per the rubric. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics because there are none to explain. The schema already reflects the absence of parameters, so the description need not compensate further.

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 the tool's function: returning a canonical list of image-generation styles/presets. It uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('list of image-generation styles or presets'), and the sibling tools (pricing, official links) are obviously distinct. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 implies the usage context: when you need the authoritative list of styles or presets for image generation. It doesn't explicitly state exclusions, but since there are no overlapping sibling tools, the absence of alternatives is clear. For a simple list-retrieval tool, this is adequate.

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