KRDS 디자인 토큰 조회

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantive behavior beyond them: var() references are resolved to concrete values (hex etc.), results cap at 80 items, and a query-less call returns a classification guide rather than erroring. That is real operational context an agent could not infer from the annotations.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying distinct information: identity, value resolution, usage rule, and return shape. No repetition of the title or schema, and the most decision-relevant facts come first.

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, the description carries the return-value burden and does so: token name, value, and resolved real value, capped at 80. Combined with 100% schema coverage and full annotation coverage, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already explains the space-separated AND matching with examples, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning the schema does not: omitting query entirely yields a category guide, which tells the agent the parameter is safely optional and how to start exploring.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('킷 디자인 토큰 ... 을 조회한다') and immediately scopes it with examples (색·간격·글자 크기, CSS 커스텀 프로퍼티). This clearly separates it from siblings like list_components or get_component, which deal with components rather than 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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use rule: if custom CSS needs colors/sizes, look up a token here and use var() instead of an arbitrary value, with the accessibility rationale stated. It also documents the no-query behavior. It does not name any alternative sibling tool or state a when-not condition, so it falls short of a 5.

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