list_tokens

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the token population (128 required + 40 optional = 168), the full category set, which tokens were removed, and which aliases are optional. The gaps are pagination behavior and return shape, which it does not address despite limit/offset parameters.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded with the count and categories up top. The spacing and radius notes are dense and somewhat verbose, but they supply interpretation guidance that would otherwise be unavailable given the absence of an output schema, so most sentences earn their 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?

For a 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description explains the token domain thoroughly but omits pagination semantics for limit/offset and says nothing about the response shape. It is adequate but not complete.

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 only 25%: only 'required' is documented in the schema. The description partially compensates for 'category' by enumerating the 17 valid category values, which is real added meaning. However, limit and offset — the pagination controls — are left entirely unexplained.

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 and resource: 'List the CSS custom-property tokens in the theme contract (scripts/theme-contract.json)', plus concrete counts and categories. An agent can distinguish it from get_token and search_tokens by the browse-all framing, though the description never names those siblings to make the contrast explicit.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this over search_tokens, get_token, or list_themes. The spacing/radius notes explain how to interpret tokens, not when to call this tool, so usage remains only implicitly inferable from the 'List' verb.

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