get_design_tokens

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It implies a read operation via 'Provides' and the 'get' verb, but does not explicitly state that it is read-only, idempotent, or free of side effects. For a simple getter this is adequate, but it lacks explicit safety guarantees.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists all relevant categories. There is no fluff or redundancy, though it is slightly list-heavy.

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?

For a simple get tool with one enum parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main token categories adequately. It does not provide examples or format details, but those are not strictly necessary given the tool's simplicity and the schema's completeness.

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 input schema fully documents the single 'category' parameter with an enum and description, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no additional semantic detail beyond listing the categories, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 specifies the exact resources: HSL CSS color variables, globals.css setup, typography scales, spatial grid, icon stroke rules, shadows, and spring animation parameters. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_layout_blueprint and get_ux_guidelines, which likely focus on other aspects of the design system.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only lists what it provides, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context. No exclusions or conditions are mentioned.

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