List style anchors

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds real context beyond them: the ten-anchor cap and the fact that returned rows come back 'without refetching URL contents,' which signals cost and freshness behavior. It stops short of stating ordering, pagination, or what 'count' means against the cap, so not a 5.

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?

Two sentences, both front-loaded: the first defines the resource and scope, the second routes to siblings. No restatement of the name or title and no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description still discloses the return shape ('anchors and count') and the cap constraint, and annotations cover the safety profile. Minor gap: nothing about row ordering or behavior when the cap is reached, which matters for a capped list.

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 active_only is fully documented in the schema, including its default and omit-behavior, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only alludes to it via 'active flags' and adds no filtering semantics beyond that, which is the expected baseline for a single fully-documented parameter.

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 saved writing-style references') plus the scope of what is returned: active flags and the ten-anchor cap. That distinguishes it immediately from add_style_anchor and remove_style_anchor, which share the same resource noun.

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?

Gives an explicit downstream use ('select style_anchor_ids for write_tweet or write_blog') and names both alternatives with the action each performs (add_style_anchor to save, remove_style_anchor to delete). An agent can route correctly without inspecting any schema.

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