figma_tokens

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

With readOnlyHint=true already covering side-effect safety, the description adds meaningful context about output shape: colors as hex, aliases as {name}, and inclusion of paint/text/effect styles. It does not mention limits or error behavior, but those are less important for an annotated read-only tool. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two dense sentences carry both return content and usage ordering with no filler. The first sentence front-loads what the tool returns, and the second tells the agent when to use it and what to call next.

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 three optional, fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains scope and return shape. It could additionally note the default variable cap or behavior when no collection matches, but those are minor gaps and the schema partially covers the cap.

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 collection, maxVariables, and includeStyles are already documented in the schema. The description only implicitly touches includeStyles by mentioning local styles and adds no filter, cap, or default semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 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 specifies a concrete resource: local variable collections with modes and per-mode values, plus paint/text/effect styles. It also names figma_metadata as a complementary tool, which helps distinguish this from siblings. It lacks a direct operative verb like 'return' or 'list', but the colon-definition and usage directive make the purpose clear.

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?

It gives an explicit when-to-use: 'Read this before generating code or building on a design system.' It also points to figma_metadata with styles:true as the next step for node bindings. It does not state exclusions or when not to use this tool, so it falls just short of full guidance.

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