get_token

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It implies a read-only operation via '조회합니다' and states that both value and metadata are returned. However, it does not disclose error behavior, optionality of category, or any side effects, though the query nature mitigates this.

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 well-formed sentence that conveys the core function without redundancy. Every word contributes to the meaning, and it is appropriately front-loaded with the action and object.

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 read operation with two parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but not rich. It explains the primary purpose but lacks differentiation from sibling tools (e.g., get_color_token) and omits details like return format or failure modes. The optional category is not mentioned, which could lead to under-specification.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reuses the parameter meanings (category and token name) from the schema without adding new semantic detail. The category parameter's optionality is not highlighted in the description, but the schema covers it.

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 tool retrieves design token values and metadata by category and token name, using a specific verb ('조회합니다' = retrieves). It distinguishes from list-type siblings by indicating exact lookup, but does not explicitly contrast with get_color_token or find_token_by_value.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and schema.

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