Get Component Tokens

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, making the read-only nature transparent. The description adds valuable behavioral context by disclosing the output format (e.g., 'var(--bsi-spacing-m) → 1.5rem') and the semantic nature of the returned values, which goes beyond the annotation's simple safety flag.

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 only two sentences, each carrying essential information. The first sentence front-loads the key action and output, and the second provides usage context. 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?

Given the tool has one required parameter with full schema coverage, an output schema exists, and the description provides a clear example and purpose, the description is complete enough for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with a clear description for the 'name' parameter. The description does not add additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 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 the specific verb 'Returns' and explicitly identifies the resource: 'customizable CSS --bsi-* variables for a component'. It clearly states what the tool does and includes a concrete example that differentiates it from sibling tools like 'get_component' or 'find_token'.

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 phrase 'Useful to understand concrete values behind CSS custom properties or design tokens' provides clear context for when to use the tool. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, the sibling tool list enables agents to infer distinctions.

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