extract_tokens_from_css

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic operation. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether parsing is strict or lenient, what format extracted tokens are in, error handling for invalid CSS, or performance characteristics. For a parsing tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for this simple tool.

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 annotations, no output schema, and a parsing operation that likely returns structured data, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'design tokens' means in this context, what format they're returned in, or any limitations. The simplicity of the tool (1 parameter) doesn't compensate for these gaps.

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 100% (the 'css' parameter is fully documented in schema), so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides about CSS file contents with custom properties.

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 action ('Parse CSS custom properties and extract design tokens'), identifies the resource (CSS files with custom properties), and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on CSS input rather than Figma, JSON, Tailwind, or generation/validation tools.

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 context (when you have CSS with custom properties to extract tokens), but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives like 'extract_tokens_from_json' for non-CSS sources. The sibling tools provide clear alternatives, but the description doesn't reference them.

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