Get token values

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description builds on that by disclosing the resolved-value nature, the multi-theme output behavior, and the all-or-filtered scope. It doesn't contradict the annotations or claim side effects; the only minor gap is not stating output shape or limits, but the read-only and closed-world hints lower the burden.

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 main statement is front-loaded in one short sentence, followed by a compact summary of filters and output behavior. Every sentence earns its place, and no schema information is redundantly repeated.

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 four optional parameters with full schema descriptions, read-only annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the core behavioral expectations: what is returned, how filtering works, and the all-themes default. It could be slightly more explicit about when to choose this over sibling tools, but nothing needed to invoke it correctly 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 schema already explains group, theme, filter, and includeScales. The description adds only a compact restatement ('filter by group, by name fragment, or return everything') and the default all-themes behavior, which is useful but not needed to understand the parameters.

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 names a specific resource ('resolved token values') and a clear action (return them), then distinguishes the tool's breadth: filters by group or name fragment, or returns everything. It also adds the cross-theme viewing behavior, which separates it from related tools like get_primitives or export_tokens without needing to open schema.

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 effectively gives usage context: use this for resolved tokens, optionally scoped by group, theme, or name fragment, and compare theme values side by side. It doesn't name sibling alternatives or give when-not conditions, but the intended invocation context is clear from the filtering options and 'resolved' wording.

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