Get token values

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is established. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it returns values across all themes by default, making dark-mode differences visible side by side. This exceeds the annotations without contradicting them.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose ('Resolved token values'). Every clause earns its place—filters and theme behavior are covered with zero fluff.

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 the read-only annotation, rich schema, and simple list return, the description covers the essential behavior: resolvable filters and all-theme display. No output schema exists, so the description's mention of theme side-by-side serves as a return hint. Minor gaps like pagination or ordering are not critical for this tool.

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 input schema already documents all 4 parameters with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds minimal extra meaning—it paraphrases the 'group' and 'filter' parameters but does not deepen semantic understanding beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 states the tool retrieves resolved token values, and distinguishes from siblings like get_primitives by emphasizing 'resolved'. It specifies filtering by group, name fragment, or everything. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for raw values or search, so it lacks strong sibling differentiation.

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 implies usage context: use this to fetch resolved token values with optional filters. It does not explicitly state when to use an alternative like search or get_primitives, nor provide exclusions. Guidance is present but implicit.

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