get_native_style

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves style and layout info, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't cover aspects like permissions needed, rate limits, error handling, or what the output format might be (e.g., JSON structure). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get native style and layout info') and adds necessary scope ('React Native only'). There is zero waste, and every word earns its place, making it efficient and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (retrieving style/layout data), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'style and layout info' entails, how it's returned, or any behavioral traits like error cases. For a tool with these gaps, the description should provide more context to be adequately 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 100% description coverage, with the 'id' parameter documented as 'Element ID'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 purpose as 'Get native style and layout info' with the specific scope 'React Native only', which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_element_by_id' or 'get_component_tree' that might also retrieve element information, so it misses full sibling differentiation.

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. It mentions 'React Native only', which implies a context but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or compare it to similar tools like 'get_element_by_id' for non-style info. There's no explicit when/when-not or alternative tool mentioned.

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