hig_get_tokens

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses useful behavioral details: tokens carry provenance via 'src' tags, 'verify':true flags mark values needing OS confirmation, and semantic colors are dynamic and should be referenced by name rather than hardcoded as hex. This adds meaningful context for how the returned data should be interpreted and used, without contradicting annotations.

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 compact and well-structured: a clear one-line purpose, a short behavioral/provenance paragraph, and a concise Args/Returns block. Every sentence contributes substantive information, and the most important statement is front-loaded. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 read-only, idempotent getter with a single enum parameter and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers the return type, provenance behavior, dynamic color caution, and category options. It could be slightly more explicit about what 'all' returns, but the presence of an output schema and annotation hints makes this a minor gap.

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 parameter is already well-defined by the schema's enum and description, and the tool description repeats the allowed values without adding deeper meaning about what each category encompasses. It does not explain nuances like what 'typography' or 'materials' includes, but the param is self-explanatory and the schema provides enough information for correct invocation.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: "Return curated Apple HIG design tokens for a category." This clearly states what the tool does and the category parameter makes the scope explicit. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools, but the resource (design tokens) is distinct enough from hig_check_liquid_glass, hig_swiftui, and hig_fetch to avoid confusion.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. It only documents the category argument and return value. Usage context is implied by the tool name and description, but there is no explicit routing or comparison to sibling tools.

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