design_tokens

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing side effects and safety traits. It states that the tool generates tokens, but does not mention whether it writes files, returns data, requires authentication, or has any rate limits or limitations. This lack of detail makes the tool's runtime behavior opaque.

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 a single sentence that efficiently packs in the core action and a wide range of capabilities and output targets. It is front-loaded with 'Generates' and avoids unnecessary repetition, though the phrase 'ultra-premium Claude Level-5' adds minor promotional fluff.

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 tool with five parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns and how parameters affect the output. It only enumerates what the tokens include and supported formats, providing no invocation-level details. This is insufficient for correct usage.

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 only 40% (two of five parameters have descriptions). The description hints at the 'format' parameter by listing output formats (Tailwind v4, CSS, JSON, Flutter) and at color parameters via 'OKLCH color palettes', but it does not explain 'brandName' or 'themeMode'. This leaves most parameters underspecified.

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 uses a specific verb 'Generates' and clearly identifies the resource 'design tokens' with detailed specifications (OKLCH color palettes, semantic layers, glassmorphism shadows, motion physics, Arabic typography scales). It also lists concrete output formats (Tailwind v4, CSS, JSON, Flutter), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like anti_slop_audit or accessibility_audit.

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?

The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as generate_claude_design_tokens or run_full_design_pipeline. The intended usage is only implied by the tool's action, and there are no exclusions or comparative context.

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