get_token_siblings

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses that the tool is read-only, modifies no files, excludes the original token, and returns an empty list when there are no siblings. It also describes the return payload at a high level, though it omits error behavior such as what happens when token_name is invalid.

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 clearly structured and front-loaded with the core behavior, then usage guidance, exclusions, side effects, parameters, and returns. It is appropriately sized, though 'Read-only' is repeated in both the opening and the Side effects section.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, and the description covers purpose, usage, exclusion behavior, side effects, parameter semantics, and return shape. Given the low complexity and existing output schema, an agent has enough information to select and invoke it correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented token_name parameter. It does so by explaining that token_name accepts an exact token name like 'Primary' or a fully-qualified name like 'AppColors.Primary', which is the key semantic detail needed to invoke the tool correctly.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it returns semantically related token variants such as PrimaryDark and PrimaryLight, with concrete examples. The purpose is clear, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools such as list_tokens or find_token_by_color to sharpen differentiation.

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?

It gives clear when-to-use guidance: exploring related tokens or checking existing color variants. It also states a boundary condition that the original token is excluded and an empty list is returned when no siblings exist, but it does not name alternative tools or compare against them.

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