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

Annotations already declare the operation read-only and idempotent, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: the returned values are token names, not literal hex values, and selecting token names is what makes a retheme propagate. It also indicates the scope of the returned theme information.

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, with the core subject ('the theme system') front-loaded and the key token-name principle in a concise follow-up. Slightly cryptic phrasing like 'which hooks to call' costs a bit of clarity, but overall it is appropriately compact.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what the agent gets and how to use it. It lists the relevant scales, mentions the hooks, and provides the retheme propagation rule, which is enough for a simple read-only getter.

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 has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to document. The baseline of 4 applies because the description still communicates the nature of the returned theme data, which is the only semantic detail that matters here.

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 ties the tool to the theme system and names the concrete content it surfaces: hooks to call and the spacing, radius, and typography scales. The title reinforces the 'get theme tokens' verb-resource relationship, and it is distinct from sibling getters like get_rules or get_provider_tree, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with them.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this tool is relevant when working with theme tokens or retheming, especially since the description emphasizes token names over hex values. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison to alternative tools.

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