export_tokens

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints that only 'active' tokens are exported, which is useful, but does not say whether output is returned inline or written to a file, nor whether the operation is read-only or mutating.

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 with no filler; every clause (verb, resource, formats) earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and formats adequately, but omits the delivery mechanism (return value vs. file) and any usage context, leaving a meaningful gap for an unannotated tool.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description restates the enum options and slightly clarifies what 'css' means (CSS custom properties), but adds little beyond the schema's own enum.

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?

Names a specific verb (Export) and resource (active design tokens) and enumerates the three target formats. It implicitly contrasts with siblings like import_design_tokens and clear_tokens, but never explicitly distinguishes itself from them.

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 never states when to export versus using an alternative sibling, nor any prerequisites or context of use. An agent must infer the appropriate moment to call it purely from the name.

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