figma_extract_design_tokens

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does not mention that the operation is read-only, whether file access or authentication is needed, what the output format looks like, or any error/edge-case behavior.

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 short sentences with a clear front-loaded definition. The second sentence adds meaningful downstream-use context without repetition or fluff.

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?

With no output schema present, the description should clarify the return shape or token format, but it does not. It also leaves ambiguity around the difference from codegen_design_tokens. For a tool with just one parameter, this may be workable, but the missing return information is a real gap.

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 single parameter fileKey is already 100% documented in the schema ('The Figma file key'). The description does not add extra semantic detail beyond confirming the file context, which matches the baseline expectation for high schema coverage.

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?

Description uses a specific action ('Extract') and resource ('design tokens from a Figma file'), making the tool's core purpose instantly clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like codegen_design_tokens, but the 'extract' vs 'codegen' distinction is implied by the name.

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 phrase 'Useful for generating CSS variables or theme files' gives context for when the tool's output matters, but it offers no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings such as codegen_design_tokens or figma_get_file. Usage is implied rather than stated with exclusions.

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