list_tokens

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description's "strictly read-only" line is largely redundant. What it does add of value is the shape of the result set — naming duplicate and orphan detection alongside registered and hardcoded values — which tells the agent this is an audit-style sweep rather than a simple enumeration.

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 core action, then organized under clear labeled sections, so an agent can scan it quickly. The "Side effects: None" line duplicates the annotations and slightly dilutes an otherwise tight definition.

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 one-optional-parameter read tool with a full annotation set and an output schema, this covers purpose, return categories, exclusions, and the sole parameter. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing; the only omission, default path resolution, is minor and inferable.

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 0% and the schema only says the single property is a string, so the description's "optional — explicit path to project root" materially adds both optionality and meaning. It stops short of explaining what happens when project_path is omitted (presumably auto-detection), leaving one small gap.

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 all design tokens in the project") and enumerates exactly what the listing comprises: registered tokens, hardcoded literals, duplicates, and orphans. It is clearly separable from siblings like find_token_by_color, set_token, and add_token, which are named explicitly.

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?

Provides dedicated "When to use" and "When NOT to use" sections, and routes the agent to the correct alternative in each exclusion case (find_token_by_color for reverse lookup, set_token/add_token for edits). This is explicit when/when-not plus alternatives.

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