Extract Moonvy design tokens

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what is extracted but does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it affects state, requires authentication, has rate limits, or any side effects. The description omits even basic behavioral context like caching or scope of extraction.

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 a single sentence that lists all the extracted token types without filler. It is appropriately concise and front-loads the main purpose. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

While the description lists what is extracted, it does not clarify the scope of extraction (whole design vs. page), the return format, or any prerequisites. Given the absence of an output schema and the richness of the token types, agents might need more detail on how the output is structured. It is minimally adequate but leaves gaps.

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%, with the single 'url' parameter fully documented. The description does not add any additional meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema provides. Baseline for full schema coverage is 3, and the description does not contribute extra value 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 uses a specific verb ('Extract') and clearly enumerates the resource and output types: colors, gradients, fonts, text metrics, radii, inferred padding/gaps, and shadows. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like moonvy_list_pages (page listing) or moonvy_get_node_style (node-level styles). The purpose is unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or alternatives such as moonvy_get_ui_spec or moonvy_get_design. Agents must infer usage from the name and context, which is insufficient given the broader tool family.

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