extract_styles

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: what gets extracted (design tokens like colors, fonts), the output format (organized JSON), and a performance characteristic ('No chunking needed'). It doesn't mention error conditions, rate limits, or authentication needs, but provides substantial operational context beyond basic purpose.

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 well-structured with clear sections ('HOW IT WORKS', 'TYPICAL WORKFLOW'), front-loads the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. It efficiently communicates essential information without redundancy, making it easy for an agent to parse and understand.

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 tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides strong contextual completeness. It explains what the tool does, how it works, and typical usage. The main gap is the lack of output schema, so the description doesn't detail the JSON structure, but it adequately covers the tool's role and behavior for agent selection.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain how partial matching works for page_name/frame_name). However, it does provide context about what the tool does with these parameters, maintaining the baseline score of 3.

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 specific action ('Extract all design tokens from a frame') and distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_file_styles' (which likely extracts global styles) or 'analyze_page_structure' (which focuses on layout). It explicitly mentions the resources being extracted (colors, fonts, spacing, etc.) and the output format (JSON for CSS/theme generation).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool through the 'TYPICAL WORKFLOW' section, which positions it after 'get_frame_info' to understand structure and before using tokens for theme/CSS. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings by focusing on frame-level design tokens rather than page structure or global styles, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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