nucleo-tokens-get

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

Annotations already establish this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description adds a useful output-organizing fact ('grouped by category') and implies the values are live rather than cached, but says nothing about completeness, freshness guarantees, or whether tokens include metadata such as names or resolved values.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the resource and then the scope examples and return grouping. Nothing is wasted and nothing needs to be re-read.

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 parameters, no output schema, and strong annotations, a low-complexity read tool needs only a resource statement and a hint at return shape. The category grouping supplies that, though the structure inside each category (name/value/type) remains unspecified and there is no output schema to fill the gap.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly implies there is no targeting argument by describing a whole-site fetch grouped by category.

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 (design tokens) and its scope (colors, typography, spacing, etc.), plus the retrieval shape ('grouped by category'). It reads as a read operation, implicitly the counterpart of nucleo-tokens-set, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with that sibling, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusion, and no mention of the obvious sibling nucleo-tokens-set as the write alternative. Only the word 'Current' hints at when this is appropriate (fetching live values before deciding on changes).

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