get_external_css

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key traits: the default response size (~1-3K tokens), the avoidance of token limits by not returning CSS content by default, and the need to set parameters for full content. However, it lacks details on error handling, performance, or authentication requirements, which are minor gaps.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by behavioral details and usage tips in a logical flow. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick comprehension by an AI agent.

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 complexity of a 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, and key behaviors, but lacks information on output format or error cases. Since there's no output schema, some gaps remain in explaining what the tool returns beyond size estimates.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the purpose of parameters beyond the schema: it clarifies that extractTokens is the main purpose, warns about token limits with includeFullCSS, and notes that maxContentSize applies only when includeFullCSS is true. This enhances understanding but doesn't fully detail all parameter interactions.

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 specific verb ('extract') and resource ('design tokens from CSS files'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on components, themes, or dependencies. It explicitly mentions the main purpose of analyzing design system tokens, making it distinct from tools that might retrieve CSS content or component details.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool (for analyzing design tokens without hitting response limits) and when not to use it (if full CSS content is needed, requiring specific parameter settings). It contrasts the default behavior with alternatives by explaining how to adjust parameters for different needs, offering clear usage context.

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