Validate Token Usage

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

Without annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits but only says 'Validate', implying read-only analysis. It does not state whether the tool modifies code, returns warnings/errors, or requires any permissions. The agent has no information on side effects or operational constraints.

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, efficient sentence that conveys the core purpose without any wasteful wording. It is front-loaded and immediately understandable.

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?

The description lacks critical information about the output (e.g., whether it returns a list of issues, warnings, or passes silently). Given the sibling tool set and absence of an output schema, the agent needs to infer behavior, which may lead to incorrect usage or misinterpretation of results.

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?

The input schema already covers the 'code' parameter with a clear description. The tool description adds the purpose of validating token usage, which provides context beyond the schema. Baseline is 3 due to 100% schema coverage, and the description adds moderate value but does not elaborate on expected input format or validation criteria.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('validate') and resource ('code for hard-coded values that should use design tokens'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'validate_color_pair' and 'check_contrast' by focusing on token usage validation vs. color or contrast concerns.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'replace_hard_coded_values' or 'suggest_token_migration'). The agent is not informed about prerequisites, limitations, or cases where this tool is inappropriate.

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