generate_design_tokens

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool generates tokens, but it does not disclose whether the operation writes files, returns a string, modifies project state, or requires any existing design context. This is a significant gap for a generation tool with no annotation 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning: action, output formats, and source are all conveyed clearly and efficiently.

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 annotationsa and no output schema, the tool relies entirely on the description for behavioral context. The description omits return format/delivery mechanism, side effects, and selection guidance among many similar sibling tools. Although the schema fully documents parameters, the surrounding context is insufficiently covered.

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 parameters are already documented. The description adds a little context by naming the formats and the source ('screen's design'), but it does not elaborate on includeSemanticNames, format-specific behavior, or the relationship between projectId and screenId. A baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Generates design tokens'), the resource ('from a screen's design'), and the output formats (CSS variables, Tailwind config, SCSS, or JSON). It is specific and informative, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like screen_to_css_variables or screen_to_tailwind_config.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as screen_to_css_variables, screen_to_tailwind_config, or export_design_system. The description implies usage when tokens are needed from a screen, but it provides no exclusions, prerequisites, or comparison to sibling tools.

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