List Component Tokens

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: it explains that --bsi- variables are safe to override at runtime and warns against overriding the central Design Tokens (--it-/$it-). It also clarifies the resolution chain and concrete value output, going beyond the read-only hint.

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, tightly written, with no fluff. It front-loads the core purpose (lists CSS custom properties) and then adds essential usage nuance. Every sentence earns its place.

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's moderate complexity, an output schema exists, and the readOnly annotation is present, the description is adequately complete. It covers purpose, output details, and override safety. It does not discuss error cases or invalid component names, but these are not necessary for a list-style tool with a simple parameter.

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 one parameter with a description ('Component name or slug (e.g. "accordion", "Alert")') and schema_description_coverage is 100%. The description does not add any extra parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Lists') with a precise resource ('CSS custom properties (--bsi-)... to customize a Bootstrap Italia component') and states the output fields (semantic description, resolvedVia, resolved value). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like tokens_list_globals (global tokens) and tokens_resolve (single token resolution).

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need to customize a component via CSS overrides. It also provides crucial guidance that --bsi- variables are safe to override while --it-/$it- are not. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state conditions when not to use it, though the context is strong.

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