List design tokens

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden; it clearly identifies the operation as non-mutating ('List'), but it does not mention pagination, response size, or return shape. This is acceptable for a simple read-only listing tool, though it adds minimal beyond the core action.

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?

One sentence and 13 words; the action and optional filter are front-loaded. There is no filler or repetition.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description plus the enum schema is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. It lacks only nonessential details such as response format and relationship to registry_get_token.

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%, so the description partly compensates by stating the category filter is optional and giving examples. However the examples duplicate the enum values, and the description does not explain how filtering behaves beyond the parameter name.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('design tokens'), and clarifies it returns the full collection ('all') with an optional category filter. It is distinguishable from siblings like registry_get_token and registry_create_token, though it does not explicitly call out any alternative.

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 intended use is implied by the list semantics and the optional category filter, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of registry_get_token or when a create/update operation would be appropriate. No exclusions or alternative routing are stated.

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