Extract Design Tokens

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that output can be a file artifact, which is useful, but it doesn't disclose return structure, whether extraction is lossy, or how output_path interacts with permissions. Adds some value on top of annotations but not rich 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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the extraction targets before the output choices, with no filler or redundant clauses. Every phrase earns its place.

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?

For a read-only, single-purpose extraction tool with no output schema, the description covers the core inputs and output shape adequately. A bit more on what the emitted token set contains (or how output_path omission behaves) would close the remaining gap, but nothing critical is missing.

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%, so the enum values and output_path semantics are already fully documented. The description restates the three formats, which duplicates the enum rather than adding syntax or behavior detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (Extract) and resource (design tokens) and enumerates exactly what it pulls: colors, typography, and spacing. An agent can distinguish it from get_colors or list_text_styles, which return raw primitives rather than consolidated tokens. No sibling is named, so differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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?

Listing the three output formats (CSS custom properties, JSON, Tailwind) implies the use case of porting design values into a code-consumable artifact. However, it never says when to prefer this over get_colors/export, or any exclusions, so guidance remains inferred rather than stated.

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