get_token

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully compensates by stating it is read-only, has no side effects, returns token details or an error, and normalizes category aliases. Full behavioral disclosure.

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 concise and well-structured: it leads with the main purpose, then details behavior, parameters, and usage guidance. Every sentence adds value without 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?

Given the lack of output schema, the description fully compensates by describing the return structure (name, value, category) and error case. For a simple 2-parameter lookup tool with no schema richness, the description is complete and self-contained.

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, but the description explains both 'name' and 'category' parameters in detail, listing valid category values, alias normalization, and the meaning of an empty string. Provides rich semantics 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 clearly states it looks up a specific design token by name, read-only and with no side effects. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'get_design_context' which is for broad overview, making the purpose precise.

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 states when to use this tool (when you know the token name) and when to use the alternative 'get_design_context' for a broad overview, providing clear usage boundaries.

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