get_variables

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the execution path (plugin), the hard prerequisite (file must be open in Figma Desktop), and the plan-independence constraint (REST Variables API requires Enterprise). These are non-obvious facts an agent could not infer from the schema.

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 sentences with zero filler: the first gives the return scope and source, the second gives the execution constraint. Front-loaded and appropriately sized for a parameterless read tool.

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?

For a no-arg read tool with no output schema, the definition covers source, scope, and environment constraints. It stops short of stating failure behavior (e.g. what happens when no file is open or the plugin is disconnected), which would matter for an agent deciding whether to retry.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly scopes the call as returning both variables and their collections, which is the only 'input-like' framing available.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Возвращает локальные Figma variables (design tokens) и их коллекции') plus the exact source ('из открытого в Figma Desktop файла'). The word 'локальные' distinguishes it from workspace/team-level lookups, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like get_styles or export_tokens.

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 prerequisites (Figma Desktop open file, plugin running) effectively imply when the tool is usable and when it is not, and the Enterprise remark explains why one would pick this over the REST API. However, there is no explicit guidance on choosing between get_variables, get_styles, and export_tokens, which all touch design tokens.

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