get_design_tokens

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains meaningful behavioral details: the 'css' format returns CSS variable references that resolve to OKLCH at runtime, 'hex' returns sRGB hex from meta, and 'both' returns both. It also notes the default behavior. This goes beyond a simple getter and provides useful operational context.

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 extremely concise, using two short sentences to convey the resource scope and format options. There is no fluff or repetition; every phrase adds information. The structure front-loads the core purpose before detailing format specifics.

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 a single optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the key aspects: what tokens are included and the format options. It could be slightly more complete by explicitly stating that it returns all tokens or describing the overall return shape, but for a simple retrieval tool it is sufficient.

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 already describes the 'format' parameter with an enum and a generic description, but the tool description adds significant semantic value by explaining what each enum value actually means (css vars vs hex values). This goes beyond the baseline schema coverage and helps the agent choose the correct format.

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 identifies the tool as retrieving DS design tokens covering colors, spacing, typography, radius, shadows, and motion. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on tokens rather than components, icons, or hooks. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve', relying on the tool name to convey the action.

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 does not state when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as get_theme_presets or get_ds_metadata. Usage is only implied by the resource name 'design tokens', with no explicit conditions, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools.

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