Colour Name Developer Tokens

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's job is lighter. It adds context by mentioning 'Archive-grounded name source with dE2000 distance', but does not elaborate on any behavioral traits like performance, required prerequisites, or what happens with invalid hex values. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences long, with the first sentence front-loading the core purpose ('Return every developer token format') and listing examples. The second sentence adds relevant context about the naming source. No unnecessary words.

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 two parameters, full schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations, the description adequately explains what it returns and the source of names. It could be slightly improved by noting that the output schema provides the actual structure of returned token formats, but it is already quite complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the description provides little additional meaning beyond the schema. The 'hex' parameter is already described as 'Hex value e.g. #D4A829' in the schema, and the description does not add syntax or format details. The 'archive' parameter is merely called 'Optional archive filter' without further clarification.

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 the tool returns 'every developer token format for a hex value', listing specific formats (CSS variable, kebab-case, etc.). It uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('developer token formats'), and distinguishes itself from sibling colour tools by focusing on token naming conventions.

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 implies usage for generating token formats from a hex value, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other naming tools like colour_namer) or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned.

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