get_topstitch_style

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the tool reports values exactly as CLO's API provides them and explicitly states that stitch length and thread thickness are not readable through the API. This goes beyond the schema and gives the agent realistic expectations, though it does not mention error behavior.

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 compact sentence with no filler. The main content is front-loaded, and the parenthetical adds a valuable API limitation without bloating the text.

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 one-parameter read tool, the description names the returned fields and a key limitation. However, it does not connect style_index to list_topstitch_styles or describe edge cases, and there is no output schema to fill that gap. It is adequate but leaves some context to inference.

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 and the description never explains style_index, such as what it indexes into or how it maps to a topstitch style. The parameter name is fairly self-explanatory, but with no schema description and no compensating detail in the tool description, the agent is left to infer the parameter's meaning.

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 identifies the resource (topstitch style) and the specific data returned: name, offset, and per-line values. It does not use an explicit verb like 'retrieves', but the tool name and 'as CLO's API reports them' make the read operation clear. It is distinguishable from list/create/set siblings by focusing on a single style's read-only fields.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like list_topstitch_styles, set_topstitch_style, or create_topstitch_style. The parenthetical about unreadable stitch length and thread thickness implies a limitation, but it does not name alternatives or conditions for choosing this tool.

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