extract_design_tokens

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

With no annotations provided, the description must convey safety/behavior itself. It says 'Extract... into a reusable TypeScript tokens file' which implies reading from Figma and writing a file, but it does not disclose potential side effects like file overwriting, required permissions (beyond the figmaToken parameter), rate limits, or whether the operation is idempotent. This lack of behavioral detail is a gap for a tool that creates output.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then specifies the output. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The description covers the core purpose and parameters, and no output schema exists so return details aren't required. However, it lacks information about the generated file's location, naming, overwrite behavior, or how the token categories map to the TypeScript structure. For a tool that writes files, this is a meaningful incompleteness.

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 covers all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description's mention of token categories adds some semantic nuance but does not materially alter parameter understanding. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the verb 'Extract' and the resource 'design tokens from a Figma node tree', with a specific output ('reusable TypeScript tokens file'). It also enumerates the token types (colors, spacing, typography, radii), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like generate_react_component.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool (when you need to extract design tokens from Figma into TypeScript). It does not explicitly exclude or mention alternatives, but the purpose is specific enough that siblings are obviously different. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but context is clear.

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