get_system_tokens

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries a heavier burden. It adds the key behavioral detail that it calls a legacy endpoint, which is useful for understanding API compatibility. However, it doesn't disclose important aspects like whether the operation is read-only (though 'export' implies it), performance characteristics, or potential deprecation risks, leaving gaps.

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 concise, with two sentences that efficiently convey the core function and a critical implementation detail (legacy endpoint). It is front-loaded with the primary purpose. The only minor waste is the second sentence's redundancy about the endpoint, but it's valuable info for the agent.

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 description is nearly complete for a simple 2-parameter export tool. It covers the formats, the endpoint type, and the parameter names. The only missing piece is the return format structure, but since there's no output schema, the agent might wonder what the response looks like, though 'export' typically implies a file or string.

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% description coverage, so the description itself doesn't need to repeat parameter details. The description does add context by clarifying that the format is the output format, which is helpful. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameters well, and the description's contribution is minimal but present.

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 states the tool's function: exporting a system's tokens in a specified format. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on token export, unlike get_design_handoff or get_agent_prompt. The specific list of formats adds precision, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 implies when to use it (when needing token exports) and mentions the legacy endpoint, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast with siblings. For instance, it doesn't say 'use this for token exports, not for design handoff'—that context is only implicit from the sibling names.

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