list_tokens

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the shape of the returned report (four token categories), which is useful, but says nothing about read-only safety, side effects, permissions, or performance on large projects.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and a scannable bullet list of return categories, then the usage hint. The trailing 'Args:' block largely restates the schema, a minor redundancy, but the prose is otherwise tight.

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?

For a single-optional-param read tool, the description covers purpose, usage timing, and report contents. An output schema exists, so explaining return values is not strictly required, and the remaining gaps (default path behavior, read-only guarantees) are modest.

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, and it does document the single parameter as 'optional — explicit path to project root.' However, it never states what happens when the path is omitted (e.g., auto-detection of project root), leaving the default behavior ambiguous.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('List all design tokens in the project') and enumerates what the report contains (registered, hardcoded, duplicate, orphan tokens). It does not differentiate itself from overlapping siblings such as list_orphans or get_all_token_groups, which the report categories partially duplicate.

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?

'Use this to understand the project's design system before making edits' gives a clear situational context for calling the tool. There are no exclusions or named alternatives, so it stops short of the 5-level 'when-not/alternatives' guidance.

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