get_tokens

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. 'List' signals a non-mutating read operation, but the description provides no further detail about defaults, return structure, or scoping behavior beyond what the schema states.

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, front-loaded sentence communicates the operation and scope with no filler. The parenthetical gives useful examples without elongating the description.

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-only list operation with a fully documented 4-parameter schema, this description plus the input schema is sufficient to invoke the tool correctly. It lacks sibling differentiation and an explicit statement of read-only semantics, but these are partially recoverable from the tool name and verb.

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 structured declaration already documents all four parameters. The description's inline examples ('colors, spacing, typography') echo enum values already present in the schema rather than adding new parameter-level meaning.

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?

Names a specific verb ('List'), a resource ('the file's design tokens'), and enumerates representative token categories. This clearly distinguishes it from mutation/audit siblings such as set_tokens, create_tokens, and audit_design_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?

No guidance is given on when to choose this tool over audit_design_tokens, extract_design_system_tokens, or set_tokens. The read-only use case is implied only by the verb 'List' and the tool name.

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