get_fonts

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

The description describes a read operation, but annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, a direct contradiction that misleads about side effects. No additional behavioral context provided.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every sentence provides useful context with no redundancy.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains what it returns. However, the annotation contradiction creates a completeness gap in terms of behavioral context.

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?

There are zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value beyond the schema by mentioning sorting by usage frequency, which is not in the input schema.

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 'List all fonts used in the current page, sorted by usage frequency,' specifying a concrete action and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like scan_text_nodes or get_annotations by focusing solely on fonts.

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 adds 'Useful for understanding typography without scanning all text nodes,' which implies a use case but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use it.

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