list_tokens

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool as a 'Cheap pre-flight' that returns grouped tokens with layer names and a style-gap report, and notes special behavior for composition tokens (surface hint, need includeComposition). It does not explicitly state it is read-only or mention permissions, but the read-like nature is implied.

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 front-loaded with a clear purpose statement, then concisely covers key points: pre-flight nature, comparison to sibling, and composition token caveat. Every sentence earns its place without 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 the absence of an output schema, the description does a good job describing the return format (grouped tokens, layer names, style-gap report). However, with 7 parameters and no explanations for most, completeness is lacking. The overall context is adequate but not thorough for a tool of this complexity.

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 input schema has 7 parameters with 0% documentation. The description only explains includeComposition (via a hint about composition tokens) and implicitly refers to url/fileKey/nodeId as identifying a subtree. The other parameters (depth, withVectors, withComponents) are not described at all, so the description adds minimal semantic value 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 starts with 'START HERE for any question about which design tokens a Figma frame uses,' clearly stating the verb (list/return) and resource (design tokens from a Figma frame). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool get_metadata_with_tokens by noting it is 'Much smaller' and should be called first.

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?

Explicitly says 'call this first to decide whether you actually need the full tree' and warns about composition tokens, guiding when to use this tool versus alternatives. It provides clear context for usage.

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