figma_get_token_browser

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by stating it returns a hierarchical view and that it does not use the REST API. No contradictions; the annotation and description align.

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?

Extremely concise: three short sentences that immediately convey the tool's purpose, output, and usage. Every sentence adds value with no 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's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers key aspects: purpose, return content, and use case. The missing parameter explanation prevents a perfect score, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a browsing tool.

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 description does not mention the single 'verbosity' parameter or its enum values (summary/full). With 0% schema description coverage, the burden falls on the description to explain parameters, which it fails to do, leaving the agent uninformed about output variations.

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 displays a hierarchical view of design tokens for browsing, returning variable collections, variables, modes, paint and text styles. It specifies the use case (exploring and auditing) and distinguishes from siblings by mentioning 'No REST API'.

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 explicitly says 'Use for exploring and auditing tokens in the open Figma file,' providing a clear usage context. However, it does not mention when not to use or explicitly compare to alternatives, though the context implies creation/modification tools are different.

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