xd_get_design_tokens

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose what the output contains (frequency-ranked colors/fonts, shared styles conditional on presence), but says nothing about read-only semantics, scope of traversal, or whether shared styles are included only when detected — leaving the agent to infer behavior.

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?

A single tight sentence with zero filler, and the primary purpose (color/font summary) is front-loaded ahead of the secondary qualifier about shared styles.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the result contains (frequency summary plus optional shared styles). Minor gap: it doesn't describe the structure of the summary or whether styles are objects vs counts, but that's a small omission for this complexity level.

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?

With a single required 'file' parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents the parameter fully. The description adds no syntax, constraint, or file-format details beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb (summarize) and resource (colors and fonts across the document), plus the aggregation method (by frequency) and supplementary shared styles. It is clear what the tool produces, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like xd_get_design_system or xd_get_shared_assets that sound overlapping.

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 'by frequency' and 'across the document' phrasing implies when the tool is useful (palette/typography analysis), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no routing away from the similar-sounding xd_get_design_system or xd_get_shared_assets siblings.

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