getFigmaStyles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, or any side effects. Although 'get' implies a read-only action, the description lacks explicit safety context and does not go beyond the basic action.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences that immediately state the action and the purpose. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

The tool has a simple interface with two parameters and no output schema, so the description should ideally convey what the return value looks like or any caveats. It explains the scope (color, text, effect, grid) and purpose, but does not mention return format or file-level limitations. This is adequate but not 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 already provides 100% coverage for both parameters (fileKey and figmaToken). The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema states, so it appropriately relies on the schema. Baseline 3 is warranted.

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 gets all styles (color, text, effect, grid) and explicitly ties it to extracting design tokens. The verb 'get' plus the resource 'styles' is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like getFigmaColorPalette or getFigmaComponents.

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 phrase 'For extracting design tokens' provides a clear context for when to use this tool. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name when-not-to-use, but the stated purpose is enough to guide an agent toward selecting it for design token extraction.

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