figma_get_token_browser

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, which is consistent with the description. The description adds that it returns specific data types (variable collections, variables, modes, paint/text styles) and notes it uses no REST API, providing additional context beyond annotations.

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 long, front-loading the purpose and then providing usage guidance. Every sentence adds value without 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?

Given the tool has three parameters with relatively straightforward semantics and no output schema, the description provides enough context about the tool's function and return types. However, elaborating on the hierarchical structure or the verbosity options would improve completeness.

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 schema covers two of three parameters with descriptions (fileKey, figmaUrl). The description adds that these are used to target a specific file, but does not explain the verbosity parameter (enum: summary/full). Since schema coverage is 67%, the description modestly compensates but could be more informative.

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 states it returns a hierarchical view of design tokens, including variable collections, variables, modes, and paint/text styles. However, it could more explicitly distinguish itself from closely related siblings like figma_get_variables and figma_get_styles.

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 suggests using it for exploring and auditing tokens, and specifies using fileKey or figmaUrl for targeting files when multiple plugins are connected. It does not provide explicit alternatives or conditions for when not to use this tool.

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