Import Design Tokens

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those: only NAMED tokens are imported, bare hex values are ignored, and JavaScript configs are never evaluated. It also discloses the output contents — named roles, missing semantic roles, WCAG contrast check, and re-emitted artifacts — so an agent understands what will happen when invoked.

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 compact but information-dense; every sentence earns its place. It front-loads the core action and outputs, then covers use cases, exclusions, and limitations without tangents. The semicolon-separated list of input formats keeps the structure readable despite covering many formats.

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?

Even with no output schema, the description explains what the tool returns: named roles, missing semantic roles, WCAG contrast checks, and re-emitted code in multiple formats. It also covers accepted input formats, automatic detection, unsupported inputs, and alternative tools. For a tool of this complexity, nothing essential is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by explaining that the source format is detected automatically, clarifying that 'swiftui' or 'compose' is how to take a web theme to native, and framing what kinds of sources are acceptable. This enriches the schema definitions without merely repeating them.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read an EXISTING design system and convert it,' then enumerates accepted input formats and outputs. It further differentiates itself from siblings by calling itself the inverse of generate_design_tokens and distinguishing its scope from audit_design_system, so an agent can tell exactly what this tool does.

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?

Usage guidance is explicit: use it to port a web theme to iOS/Android, audit an inherited system, or discover undefined roles in a third-party theme. It also names alternatives for adjacent cases, e.g., bare hex values should go to audit_design_system, and states that JavaScript configs are never evaluated. This is strong when-to-use versus 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.