lookup_style_tokens

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses two accepted input syntaxes (JSON paths and template shorthand) and the default preset behavior, which are beyond what the schema alone would tell the agent. It does not describe the return format or behavior on invalid roles, but for a read-only lookup this is reasonably 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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and each clause adds distinct value (syntax variants, default behavior). There is no wasted text or repetition of schema information.

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 the simple 2-parameter schema and absence of annotations, the description covers purpose, input syntax, and defaulting comprehensively. It does not explicitly state the return structure, but for a lookup tool whose purpose is to resolve roles to hex colors, the missing detail is minor and unlikely to mislead.

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%, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds meaningful detail by explaining the two syntax formats for the roles parameter and the default chain for the preset parameter, both of which are only tersely represented in 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Resolve style preset token roles to hex colors for batch_create_elements,' clearly indicating the tool's function and target usage. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like apply_style_preset or list_style_presets, which are related but serve different purposes.

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 states the intended context ('for batch_create_elements') and explains the default preset resolution chain (activePreset from apply_style_preset, falling back to clean-tech). It does not explicitly list when not to use the tool or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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