get_file_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 behavioral traits: what it returns (design system tokens), that these are 'official styles defined in Figma', and output characteristics ('Compact output, no chunking needed'). It doesn't mention error conditions, rate limits, or authentication needs, but provides substantial context beyond basic functionality.

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-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. It efficiently communicates purpose, behavior, and usage guidelines without redundancy or unnecessary information.

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 (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is quite complete. It explains what the tool does, how it works, output characteristics, and how it fits into workflows. The main gap is lack of explicit error handling or return format details, but for a read-only tool with good behavioral description, this is minor.

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 has 100% description coverage with the 'file_key' parameter clearly documented as 'Figma file key'. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage. No compensation is needed since schema coverage is complete.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get all published styles defined in the file' with specific details about what it returns ('design system tokens: colors, text styles, effects') and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'extract_styles' which is for frame-specific tokens. It explicitly names the resource (styles/tokens) and verb (get).

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 versus alternatives, particularly in the 'TYPICAL WORKFLOW' section which states: '1. get_file_styles → global design tokens 2. extract_styles(frame) → frame-specific tokens 3. Combine for complete design system'. This clearly differentiates it from 'extract_styles' and explains the complementary relationship.

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