extract_design_system_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 describes the core behavior (analyzing and extracting tokens) and what kinds of tokens are discovered, but it does not clarify whether the operation is read-only, what side effects might occur, or what the result structure looks like. This is adequate but not fully transparent.

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-structured sentence that fronts the action and resource, lists concrete outputs, and includes the purpose. Every phrase earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description provides a reasonable overview but omits important operational context: the response format, whether the operation modifies anything, and how the optional parameters alter behavior. It is complete enough for a basic understanding but not fully sufficient for confident invocation.

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 two optional parameters (fileId, artboardId) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level guidance, such as how the parameters affect token discovery scope, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific action ('Analyzes ... extracts') and a clear resource ('existing design document'), and lists the token categories returned (color palette, typography scale, radius steps, spacing values). It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like audit_design_tokens, but the phrase 'implicit design tokens' makes the intent distinct.

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 when to use the tool: when an existing design document needs to be analyzed to derive tokens for system creation. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives such as audit_design_tokens, get_tokens, or create_tokens.

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