get_theme_variables

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes what the tool retrieves (theme tokens) and their categories, but does not disclose behavioral aspects such as response format (e.g., flat object vs nested), any potential side effects, authentication requirements, or performance implications. It is unambiguous that it is a read-only query, but more detail on the output structure would improve 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 two sentences: the first states the core purpose and lists included tokens; the second directs users to alternative tools for customization guides. Every sentence adds value, it is front-loaded with the main action, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 no output schema, the description covers what is returned by listing the major categories of tokens (semantic colors, layout tokens with specific sub-items). It also provides the source location. It does not specify the exact JSON structure or include an example, which would make it more complete, but it is sufficient for a simple retrieval tool with no parameters.

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 zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%. With 0 parameters, baseline is 4. The description adds value by explaining exactly what the tool returns (semantic colors and layout tokens with examples), which clarifies the purpose beyond the empty 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?

The description states the verb 'Get' and specifies the resource exactly: 'HeroUI v2's default theme tokens'. It further enumerates the types: semantic colors (light/dark) and layout tokens (radius, border widths, opacity, font sizes, box shadows). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_docs or list_components which serve different purposes.

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 guidance by pointing to alternative tools: 'Use get_docs({ path: ... }) for the narrative guide on overriding these via tailwind.config / createTheme'. This clarifies when to use this tool (to get raw tokens) versus when to use another tool (for narrative override guidance). It could be more explicit about when not to use, 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.