Get design tokens

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description adds that tokens are 'measured from the live site,' which is meaningful provenance context, but says nothing about freshness, caching, or auth requirements.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the resource and provenance, then the format options. Every clause earns its place, though the parenthetical lists are packed tight.

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 must convey returns, and it does via the per-format breakdown of what each mode produces. It is largely sufficient for a single-parameter read tool, lacking only freshness or caveat notes.

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 0% for the single format parameter, so the description carries the full burden and does — explaining that 'json' is the default, 'css' yields CSS custom properties only, and 'base-css' adds global styles, ripple buttons, and reveal animation. This is exactly the meaning the bare enum lacks.

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 resource (design tokens) and its provenance (measured from the live site), enumerating the token categories covered (colors, type scale, spacing, layout, motion, scrollbar). An agent can tell this retrieves design tokens rather than components or page content, though it never names siblings like get_design_spec to sharpen the distinction.

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?

No statement of when to prefer this over get_design_spec, get_site_content, or the component tools. The format values imply different output contexts, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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