Get design tokens as JSON

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses partial:true fallback behavior when machine-readable tokens are absent and notes that it explains what is missing. It also signals cost ('cheapest way'). It does not discuss errors or auth, but these are less relevant for a simple read-style token fetch.

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?

Three tight sentences: the first states the core action, the second gives routing guidance, the third explains an important edge case. No filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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?

The description is sufficient for a simple two-parameter read tool: it states what is returned, which sibling to prefer, and how missing tokens are handled. Without an output schema, it does not describe the exact JSON shape, but the declared token categories and partial:true behavior give an agent enough context to call it correctly.

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 documents design_id and only. The description lists token categories that mirror the only enum, but adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 verb ('Return'), a specific resource ('design system's tokens'), and clarifies the output format ('structured JSON'). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool get_design, saying it should be the default for concrete styling questions.

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 clear when-to-use guidance: it is the cheapest way to answer concrete styling questions and should be preferred over get_design. It does not enumerate all sibling alternatives or specify when to avoid it, so it stops short of a 5.

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