figma_get_styles

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is clear. The description adds that it operates on 'local' styles and 'No REST API', which provides context beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits like what happens if the file is not open or performance implications. The description is adequate but not extensive.

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 sentences: first states purpose, second provides targeting context and distinguishes from REST API. Every word is necessary, no fluff. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized.

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 (3 parameters, no output schema, annotations present), the description covers the essential aspects: what it does (get styles), targeting options, and operational context (local, not REST). It does not describe return values, but the tool name implies style objects. For a read-only retrieval tool, this is nearly complete.

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 high coverage with descriptions for all three parameters (figmaUrl, fileKey, verbosity). The description adds 'Use fileKey or figmaUrl to target a specific file,' which is redundant with schema descriptions. For high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate as the description adds minimal new meaning.

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 retrieves local paint, text, and effect styles from the open Figma file. It specifies the resource ('styles') and the action ('get'). The mention of 'No REST API' helps differentiate from other tools like 'figma_rest_api', and 'Use fileKey or figmaUrl' clarifies targeting. This provides specific verb+resource and distinguishes from siblings.

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 implies usage for the open Figma file and mentions that fileKey or figmaUrl can target a specific file. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide alternative tools for similar purposes (e.g., 'figma_get_variables' for variables). The guidance is implied but not explicit.

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