lemon_design_tokens

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Emit' implies an output-generating operation with no side effects, but the description does not explicitly state it is read-only, requires no permissions, or that it simply returns a spec. It does add value by indicating the output is a machine-readable format agents can apply, but omits details about the output structure or any potential 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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Emit a complete DESIGN.md token spec') and then enumerates the included components. There is zero wasted wording, and the key distinction (machine-readable, verbatim applicability) is included without extra 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?

The tool is moderately complex (emits a full spec with six categories), and the description captures the full scope. It doesn't explain how the mood or constraint parameters affect the output, but the schema descriptions already do that. With no output schema, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to understand what it will receive, though it could mention the exact output format (e.g., Markdown or JSON) for added clarity.

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 has 100% coverage, meaning all parameters (mood, voice, constraint) already have descriptive names and comments. The description adds no additional meaning about these parameters or how they influence the generated spec. Since the schema fully documents them, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Emit') and resource ('complete DESIGN.md token spec'), explicitly listing all component categories (color, radius, spacing, motion, type, layout laws). It clearly distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing 'complete' and 'machine-readable design system format,' making it obvious this is the comprehensive spec generator rather than a specialized tool like lemon_palette or lemon_type_spec.

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 the specialized siblings (lemon_palette, lemon_type_spec, etc.). The description only explains what it does, not when an agent should prefer it over alternatives. It lacks exclusions or conditions for selecting this tool.

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