remotion_list_typography_tokens

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool returns JSON with font details and is optimized for video, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it's a read-only operation. The example suggests async usage, but this isn't explicitly stated in the description text.

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 moderately concise but includes redundant elements. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, but the 'Returns' section repeats information, and the example is verbose for a simple tool. It could be more front-loaded and eliminate repetition like 'Returns font families...' after already stating it returns tokens.

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 low complexity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does and the return format, but lacks details on behavioral context (e.g., async nature, video-specific constraints). Without annotations or output schema, it should provide more completeness for a tool in a video processing context.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline of 4 for no parameters. It appropriately focuses on output without unnecessary parameter details.

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's purpose: 'List all available typography tokens.' It specifies the resource (typography tokens) and verb (list), and distinguishes from siblings like 'remotion_list_color_tokens' by focusing on typography. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'remotion_list_motion_tokens' or 'remotion_list_themes' beyond the token type.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., for video design), or compare with siblings like 'remotion_get_theme_info' which might include typography. The description implies usage for video optimization but lacks explicit when/when-not instructions.

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