List Global Tokens

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description is consistent. It adds behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining the output entry structure (paired central token, global --bsi-* property, resolved value), the filter semantics (substring, not semantic), and the scope limitation (only bridged tokens). No contradictions. This is valuable transparency for a read-only tool.

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?

Three concise sentences: the first states purpose, the second explains output structure, and the third covers usage and alternatives. No unnecessary words. The description is front-loaded and 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?

The tool is simple (one optional param), no output schema, but the description adequately covers return entry structure, filtering behavior, scope, and sibling differentiation. It even notes the inclusion criteria. This is complete for the tool's complexity with minimal 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?

The input schema percent coverage is 100% and already fully documents the 'match' parameter semantics, including examples and the fact it is literal substring matching. The description adds little beyond what the schema provides—it only repeats the example usage. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the documentation burden.

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 lists global design tokens used by Bootstrap Italia, with a specific verb and resource. It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tool tokens_list_component_vars by directing per-component variable lookups there. The scope is precise ('global design tokens... that Bootstrap Italia actually uses'), avoiding ambiguity.

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?

Provides explicit usage instructions: 'Without arguments returns all global tokens; pass match to filter' with examples. It states the alternative tool for per-component variables and clarifies the inclusion rule ('Only tokens bridged into BSI are listed'). This gives clear when-to-use and 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.