jekyll_token_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose 'Read-only', which is the key safety signal, but omits return shape (single token vs. list) and pagination behavior. The read-only disclosure is valuable given absent annotations, but disclosure is thin overall.

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 plus a two-word safety note. Every element earns its place with no padding.

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 one-parameter read lookup with no output schema, the description covers purpose, input semantics, and read-only safety adequately. The only missing piece is the return format, but the simple shape of the tool makes that 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds concrete examples ('color', 'spacing', '--color-primary') that materially clarify what a name fragment or category looks like beyond the schema's terse 'Token name fragment or category'.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (tokens) with scope (matching a name or category), so the verb+resource pairing is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling jekyll_token_list, which an agent could easily confuse with a filtered lookup.

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?

'Matching a name or category' implies when the tool is appropriate, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus jekyll_token_list, nor any stated exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is inferred rather than directed.

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