find_components_using_token

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states the search domain (cssProperties array) and a condition (works without tokensPath). It implies a read operation but does not detail behavior on empty results or error handling. Still fairly transparent.

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?

Three concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by use case and a clarifying condition. No wasted words.

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?

Lacks output schema and does not describe return format (e.g., list of component names or IDs). For an impact analysis tool, knowing what information is returned is important. No mention of errors or performance. Could be more complete given the complexity of the search.

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% with each parameter described. The description adds minimal extra value; it reinforces tokenName purpose and fuzzy matching but does not significantly enhance 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?

Description clearly states the verb (find), resource (components referencing a token), and context (impact analysis). It also differentiates by noting it works without tokensPath configured, distinguishing it from potential siblings like find_components_by_token.

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?

Specifies the use case: 'impact analysis before renaming or removing a design token.' However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or list alternative tools, but the context is clear.

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