KRDS 디자인 토큰 조회

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers real behavioral context: var() references are expanded to concrete values (hex, etc.), contrast/accessibility guarantees are baked into tokens, and a query-less call returns category guidance rather than failing. It omits error/empty-result behavior and pagination, but for a lookup tool this is solid coverage.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what is retrieved, then the value-resolution behavior, then the usage directive, then the no-param fallback. No filler; every sentence informs a decision or expectation.

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 and no annotations, the description covers the key gaps: what is returned, that values are resolved, what a query-less call yields, and when to prefer it. The main residual gap is that the shape/format of the returned token list is not described, but this is minor for a simple lookup.

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% (the query param already documents space-separated AND matching with examples), so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining what happens when the optional param is omitted (category guidance is returned), which is meaning the schema does not convey.

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 (retrieve kit design tokens — color/spacing/font-size CSS custom properties) and adds the non-obvious behavioral detail that var() references are resolved to real values. The scope is unambiguous next to siblings like get_icon_fix_css or list_components, which cover entirely different resources.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent when to reach for this tool ("if you need colors/sizes in custom CSS") and warns against the alternative of hardcoding arbitrary values, plus notes that tokens carry built-in accessibility (contrast). It stops short of naming a sibling tool as the alternative, but the when/when-not framing is clear.

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