get_tokens

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

With no annotations, description fully covers behavior: returns empty array (not error) if no tokens, describes return shape, error behavior, and prerequisites. No hidden side effects.

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?

Front-loaded purpose, then prerequisites, return shape, error behavior, and use cases. Every sentence adds value; no wasted words.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, description fully explains what the tool does, its output shape, error behavior, and usage context. No missing information.

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?

No parameters exist (schema coverage 100%), so baseline is 4. Description adds no parameter info but provides return structure, which is not strictly parameter semantics; still adequate.

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 'Get all design tokens currently stored in the local registry', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like sync_design_tokens and update_token by mentioning the local registry and alternative uses.

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?

Provides explicit prerequisites (none), suggests running pull_design_system if registry is stale, and lists specific use cases. It also directs to sync_design_tokens for Tailwind mapping, offering an alternative.

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