List tokens

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose the case-insensitive substring matching and optional filtering behavior. However, it does not state default behavior (e.g., returns all tokens when no filters are provided), result ordering, or any performance caveats. The read-only nature is implied but not explicitly stated.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with a clear question and concise statement. Every word earns its place, and it avoids unnecessary detail.

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 an output schema provided, return values are already covered. The description covers the core behavior and all filter options. It lacks an explicit statement about the no-filter case, but that is easily inferred. The overall simplicity of the tool makes this description sufficiently complete.

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%, so the description must compensate. It names all three parameters (group, status, and implicitly query via 'substring match') and adds specific semantics for query (case-insensitive match on name and description). Group and status receive no additional meaning beyond their names, though status has an enum in the 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 clearly states 'Lists design tokens' with optional filters, providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_token (single token) and list_components (components) by focusing on the token collection with filtering.

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 implies usage for browsing tokens and mentions the available filters, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_token or whats_deprecated. It provides no exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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