extract_tokens_from_tailwind

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 states the tool parses and extracts values, implying a read-only operation, but lacks details on error handling, output format, performance considerations, or any side effects. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and every part contributes to understanding the action and resource, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 parsing and extracting design tokens, the lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'universal design tokens' entail, how results are returned, or any limitations, leaving the agent with incomplete context for effective use.

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%, with the single parameter 'config' fully documented in the schema as 'The contents of a tailwind.config.js or tailwind.config.ts file'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format specifics or examples, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating further.

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 action ('parse', 'extract') and resource ('Tailwind config', 'theme values', 'universal design tokens'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from some siblings like 'extract_tokens_from_css' by specifying the source as a Tailwind config, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings like 'extract_tokens_from_figma_variables'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions parsing a Tailwind config, but it doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, such as when to choose this over 'extract_tokens_from_css' or 'generate_tailwind_config'.

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