export_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. It states the export action and formats, but it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what the returned payload looks like, whether it exports from local variables, styles, or the current selection, or if there are any side effects.

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?

A single, tightly written sentence with no filler. The core action, scope, and supported formats are all front-loaded and immediately actionable.

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 one-parameter, read-like export tool the description is minimally adequate, but with no output schema and no annotations it leaves ambiguities around scope ('all' tokens from where?) and response shape. It does not explain how the export is returned or whether the agent needs to specify a format for correct usage.

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%: the format parameter has an enum and a default-value description. The description essentially repeats the enum values without adding extra context, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Export') with a clear resource ('all design tokens') and names four concrete output formats. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling export tools like export_color_palette and export_typography.

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 when to use it—when all design tokens are needed in a standard format—but it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives such as import_tokens, create_design_tokens, or the more specialized export tools. There is no when-not-to-use guidance.

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