get_design_system

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns the 'active' design system tokens and specifies the token categories (colors, fonts, chart defaults). However, it does not mention potential side effects (likely none), authentication needs, or whether the token set is complete or partial. It is adequate but could add more detail for full transparency.

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 description is two sentences: the first front-loads the primary purpose, and the second gives a practical usage hint. Every word is useful; no redundancy or 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 that there are no parameters and an output schema exists, the description covers the essentials: what the tool returns and when to use it. It is complete for a read-only getter in the context of sibling tools.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema is fully self-explanatory. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. The baseline of 4 applies because there are no parameters to clarify.

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 clearly states it returns active design system tokens, explicitly listing colors, fonts, and chart defaults. The verb 'return' plus the resource (design system tokens) makes the purpose unambiguous, and it is distinct from sibling tools like inject_plotly_chart or apply_workspace_palette.

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 gives explicit context: 'Use this to stay consistent when writing custom chart code.' This tells the agent when to use it, though it does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools. Since the tool is a simple getter, the lack of exclusions is acceptable.

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