lemon_type_spec

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the output categories (family pairings, tokens, laws) but does not state whether the tool is read-only, what format the response takes, or any side effects. It provides moderate context about scope but not full behavioral transparency.

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 two sentences with the core purpose and outputs front-loaded. The 'Verge-DESIGN.md-style discipline' reference adds stylistic flavor but does not significantly bloat it. Efficient and well-structured.

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-parameter tool with no output schema, the description lists the contents of the response well enough to understand the tool's function. However, it leaves the exact response format unstated and relies on the schema for the omission behavior. Adequate but not complete.

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 single voice parameter is fully documented in the schema: an enum of the five voices plus a description stating 'Omit for all + the fluid scale + laws.' The description repeats the enum values and adds no new meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 clearly identifies the tool as a typography system for a voice, listing concrete outputs: family pairings, fluid clamp() scale tokens, and type laws. It is specific enough to distinguish it from color or motion tools, though it doesn't name or differentiate against siblings like lemon_design_tokens or lemon_section_recipe.

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 explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The voice parameter and the phrase 'Omit for all + the fluid scale + laws' imply usage, but there are no when-not conditions or routing to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer the selection logic.

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