getAvailableFonts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Get list' implies a safe read and the PostScript qualifier usefully narrows the result set, but it never states whether the call is read-only, what the list contains (family names, styles, file paths), or whether ordering/pagination matters.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The verb and resource come first and the qualifying scope follows, so nothing needs to be skimmed past.

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 zero-parameter, read-only enumeration with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does and implicitly what it returns ('list of ... fonts'). It stops short of describing the shape of the returned entries, but that gap is minor for a tool this simple.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to convey; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. The description correctly introduces no arguments.

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 (get), resource (fonts), and a meaningful qualifier (PostScript fonts registered in After Effects). No sibling tool deals with fonts, so differentiation is inherent, though the description never explicitly frames itself against alternatives.

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 trailing phrase 'for typography styling' gestures at context but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. An agent must infer that this is the lookup step before creating or formatting text layers.

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