token_map

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description richly discloses behaviors: ambiguity handling with candidate.ambiguousWith, framework built-in detection, multi-mode collection handling with themedCollections, map-file overrides, staleOverrides, and the return structure. It also notes a limitation (Tailwind v3 JS configs not yet parsed), which is excellent 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 a dense single paragraph with many nested clauses and parentheticals. While every sentence adds substantive information, the lack of structure (e.g., bullets, sections) and its length make it harder to parse quickly. It is thorough but not concise; a more structured format would improve it.

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?

Given the tool's complexity and the absence of an output schema, the description is highly complete. It explains edge cases (ambiguity, framework built-ins, multi-mode collections), override mechanisms, stale overrides, and the return object structure. This is more than sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that tokenSource can be pointed to a CSS file when Tailwind v3 JS configs are not parsed, and that rootDir defaults to the server cwd (also in schema). This extra practical guidance pushes it above baseline.

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 purpose: mapping Figma variables and shared paint styles to project design tokens so generated code references tokens instead of hard-coded values. It uses a specific verb ('Map') and a specific resource ('the document's Figma variables...and shared paint styles...to the project's design tokens'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like component_map or icon_map by targeting token mapping specifically.

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 clear context for when the tool is used (mapping tokens for code generation) and includes practical guidance like using tokenSource to override detection when Tailwind v3 JS configs are not parsed. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use the tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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