get_color_token

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses that the tool returns the exact value and description and gives an example, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe behavior for invalid/missing tokens. The verb '조회' implies a non-mutating lookup, but the disclosure is minimal.

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 well-structured sentence, front-loaded with the action ('조회합니다'), and includes a useful example. 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?

For a one-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states what the tool does, the input format, and the return content (exact value and description). Error handling details are not essential for a simple read operation like this.

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 already provides a complete description of the 'name' parameter, including examples. The description adds little beyond restating the purpose and includes an example that is a subset of the schema's example, so it does not meaningfully enhance the semantic understanding.

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 uses the specific verb '조회' (query) and names the resource 'color token name' with a concrete example 'Cool Gray/50', clearly distinguishing it from siblings like find_token_by_value (by value) and list_color_tokens (list all).

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 implies usage when you know a color token name and need its exact value and description, providing clear context. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is sufficient.

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