figma_get_design_system_summary

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint: true, so the description's 'Get a compact overview' aligns. However, the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond 'Minimal tokens', which hints at efficiency but does not disclose potential side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. Since annotations already cover safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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 concise sentences that front-load the purpose: 'Get a compact overview: variable collection names and component counts.' The second sentence adds essential targeting info. No filler or redundancy.

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 4 parameters and no output schema, the description should provide more context. It does not explain the effect of currentPageOnly or limit, nor does it describe the return format (e.g., whether it's a structured list or plain text). The tool's behavior with no parameters is left ambiguous.

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 50% (figmaUrl and fileKey have descriptions; currentPageOnly and limit do not). The description only repeats the usage of figmaUrl/fileKey, adding no new meaning for the undocumented parameters. It fails to explain the purpose of currentPageOnly and limit, which is needed given low 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get a compact overview: variable collection names and component counts.' It specifies the resource (design system summary) and the action (get). The mention of 'Use fileKey or figmaUrl' further narrows scope. This distinguishes it from siblings like figma_get_variables, though not explicitly.

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 hints at when to use via 'Minimal tokens', implying a lightweight query, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No comparison to sibling tools like figma_get_variables or figma_get_library_variables is provided.

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