resolve_v4_theme_variables

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses the parse-extract-return behavior and gives an output example, which is adequate for a read-only operation. However, it does not mention edge cases like missing files or multiple @theme blocks, so it's not exhaustive.

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 two sentences, direct, and front-loaded with the action verb. Every word earns its place, and the output example is concise.

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 a single parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, input, and output format with a concrete example. It lacks error-handling details but is sufficient for a simple, read-only parsing 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?

The schema already describes the css_path parameter with 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds the qualifier 'project's root CSS file', which narrows the intended path beyond the schema's generic 'CSS file'. This extra context enhances parameter 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 clearly states the tool parses the project's root CSS file (Tailwind CSS v4) and extracts design tokens from @theme blocks, with a concrete example of the output format. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from the generic sibling 'resolve_theme_tokens'.

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 context (Tailwind v4, @theme blocks) but does not explicitly differentiate from alternatives like 'resolve_theme_tokens' or state when not to use this tool. No when/when-not guidance is provided.

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