Get WunderUI design tokens

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It conveys that the tool is a pure read of theme constants and that the override model is how theming works, but says nothing about the shape of the returned token set, whether values are stable across versions, or how theme/format interact in output.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences with the resource stated first and the usage directive second — no filler. The opening sentence is a fragment rather than a full clause, which slightly weakens front-loading of the action.

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 zero-required-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and usage but leaves the agent guessing at return structure (e.g. what a JSON token object looks like versus a CSS block) and at whether overriding tokens is done here or elsewhere. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 50% — the 'format' enum is self-documented while 'theme' has no description in the schema. The description hints at both dimensions ('light and dark', 'in the format you need') but adds no detail on defaults or what 'both' yields, so it does not fully compensate for the coverage gap. Baseline 3 applies.

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 names the resource (design tokens) and its scope (light and dark themes, multiple output formats), which clearly separates it from sibling tools that deal with components, templates, and skills. It lacks an explicit verb and never names a sibling, but for a simple resource-fetch tool the resource identification is unambiguous.

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 these instead of hardcoding colours' gives a concrete directive for when to reach for this tool, and 'overriding them is how WunderUI is themed' explains the downstream workflow. No alternative sibling is mentioned, so it falls short of the explicit when/when-not standard.

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