get_tokens

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that reading from the local registry has no side effects, returns an empty array (not an error) when no tokens are present, and describes the return shape. It does not mention performance or rate limits, but for a simple read operation this is sufficient.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, prerequisites, return, error, usage). Every sentence adds value, no fluff. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 the tool is simple (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, prerequisites, return structure, error case, and usage scenarios. It is complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter details. It adds value by explaining the return format and error behavior (empty array), which is appropriate given no parameters. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description meets that.

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 the verb and resource: 'Get all design tokens currently stored in the local registry.' It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'pull_design_system' and 'sync_design_tokens' by stating it reads from the local registry without requiring a Figma connection, and by noting that sync_design_tokens provides a Tailwind-ready mapping instead.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool (to inspect tokens before writing code, validate coverage, check modes) and when to use an alternative ('For a Tailwind-ready mapping, use sync_design_tokens instead'). It also provides a prerequisite: 'Run pull_design_system first if the registry is empty or stale.' This is exemplary guidance.

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