get_design_tokens

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. 'Menyediakan' implies a read-only provisioning operation with no mutation side effects, and the format list tells the agent the output shape (CSS/JSON/TS/Swift). However, it never states there is no side effect, whether the data is static or generated per-call, or any cost/latency consideration — meaningful gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence listing the resource and its scope, with no filler. The long parenthetical inventory is dense but every item conveys actual token coverage, so it largely earns its place.

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?

With 5 all-optional parameters and no output schema, the description does what is needed: it names the output formats and enumerates the token categories an agent will receive. Only the absence of any return-structure hint (e.g. nesting, units, file vs payload) keeps it short of 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the enum values are already documented with defaults (e.g. 'liquid_glass (OS 26 / Tahoe)'). The description's mention of the four formats and of 'Apple System Colors & Brand Custom' mirrors rather than extends those enums, so it does not meaningfully deepen parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 names a specific verb (menyediakan/provides) and a concrete resource (official Apple HIG design tokens), then enumerates the token families covered (Liquid Glass & Classic Vibrancy, system colours, SF Pro typography, safe-area insets, chrome geometry). It never mentions the sibling tools (get_apple_hig_rule, scaffold_apple_component), so an agent cannot tell from the text alone how this differs from fetching a single HIG rule.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The only usable signal is the implicit 'get me tokens' framing, which leaves the agent to infer that this is the bulk-retrieval counterpart to get_apple_hig_rule or scaffold_* tools.

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