validate_tokens

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the output is 'a structured report with errors, warnings, and suggestions' but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, or requires special permissions. For a validation tool, the mutability and safety profile are critical.

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?

Two sentences: first states purpose and checks, second states output. No unnecessary words, well front-loaded with purpose.

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?

Given two parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and what it returns. However, it omits details like whether pathPrefix is optional or how presets map to specific rules. Still, it is fairly complete for a simple validation 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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context about what the presets control and pathPrefix filters, but largely repeats schema descriptions. It does not add significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 states 'Validate design tokens against configurable rules' which is a specific verb+resource. It lists specific checks (naming conventions, value formats, type requirements, deprecated references, architectural patterns) and distinguishes from sibling tools like search_tokens, transform_tokens, and various audit tools.

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 for validating design tokens but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like audit_semantics or validate_figma_tokens. No when-not or exclusion criteria are provided.

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