Conduit

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies the return structure ('Array of objects' with 'type: "text"' and 'text field with the styles info as JSON'), which isn't covered by annotations. Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent operations, but the description complements this by detailing the output format, enhancing transparency.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose in the first sentence, followed by return details. It's efficient with two sentences, though the return explanation could be slightly more concise. Overall, it avoids unnecessary fluff and is well-structured for quick understanding.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, read-only operation) and rich annotations (including edge case warnings and extra info), the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does and the return format, which is sufficient since there's no output schema. However, it could benefit from mentioning the scope (e.g., shared styles vs. local) as hinted in annotations.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it doesn't add any param-specific information, which is appropriate given the empty input schema. This meets expectations for a parameterless tool.

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 action ('Get all styles') and resource ('from the current Figma document'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_text_style' by specifying it retrieves all styles, not just text styles. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_node_style' which might retrieve styles for specific nodes.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention siblings like 'get_text_style' (for text-only styles) or 'get_node_style' (for styles of specific nodes), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The annotations include 'extraInfo' suggesting use for listing shared styles, but this isn't in the description itself.

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