get_tokens

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the read-only nature, return format (including detailed structure for two formats), and behavior when registry is empty. No contradictions.

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 exceptionally concise with four focused sentences covering purpose, prerequisite, return format, and alternative tool. No unnecessary words; every sentence earns its place.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully specifies the return structure including fields and formats. Covers all necessary context: prerequisites, filtering, format options, and hints at usage. Complete for a read tool.

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 coverage is 100% with good descriptions. The description adds value by explaining the benefit of filtering ('keep payloads small on large token sets') and the 'format' parameter's effect, though it doesn't repeat schema details. Slightly above baseline.

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 action ('Get design tokens from the local registry') and specifies optional filtering. It differentiates from sibling tool sync_design_tokens by noting its different purpose.

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?

Explicitly states prerequisite ('Prereq: none — local read; run pull_design_system if empty'), gives alternative for Tailwind mapping, and hints at when to use filtering. Provides clear usage context.

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