get_design_tokens

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear without the description. The description adds that output is viewport-specific and includes CSS variables, which is useful output context, but it does not disclose how style/width/height shape results or what the response contains. Adequate against an already-rich annotation set.

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 wasted words, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness. It packs three output concepts together without clarifying them.

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?

With no output schema, 0% parameter coverage, and no annotation detail about return values, the description leaves the agent without enough to call the tool confidently. For a generation tool producing tokens and CSS variables, it should at least describe the output shape and how the style parameter selects a design language.

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 0% for all three parameters, and the description only loosely implies width/height via 'viewport-specific' and style via 'typography/composition'. The four enum style values (editorial-noir, alpine-product, spatial-tech, automotive) are never explained, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 names a specific verb and resource set: viewport-specific typography, composition tokens, and CSS variables. However, it does not distinguish this tool from close siblings like get_design_system, generate_type_scale, or generate_spacing_scale, so an agent cannot tell which to pick from the text alone. The name ('get') versus the description ('generate') also creates mild ambiguity about whether it retrieves or creates tokens.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the numerous sibling generators (get_design_system, generate_type_scale, generate_palette). No prerequisites or context for choosing a style are given. Usage must be entirely inferred.

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