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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds real contextual value by detailing the output contents (OKLCH tokens, light/dark, paste-ready CSS, install command). It does not contradict the annotations and requires no additional side-effect warnings.

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, front-loaded with what the tool returns and ending with when to use it. There is no filler or repetition of the title.

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 read-only tool with a simple schema, the description sufficiently explains the returned artifacts despite no output schema. The only gap is not disambiguating its included install command from the sibling get_install_command.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline applies; id and format are already documented, including enum and default. The description reinforces that results are for a single theme but does not add param-level details beyond the 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 uses a specific verb ('get') and names the exact resource: shadcn/ui registry item, OKLCH tokens light/dark, CSS variables, and install command for one theme. It disambiguates from list/search siblings by emphasizing 'one theme' and from get_design_md by indicating it is the follow-up token-writing step.

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?

It explicitly says to use after get_design_md and precisely when ('when you are ready to write the tokens into globals.css'). It does not, however, contrast with get_install_command or state when not to use this tool.

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