get_styles

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It states 'Get all styles' but does not clarify whether this includes all style types (paint, text, effect, grid) or is read-only. The behavior is partially transparent but could be more explicit about the scope and safety.

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 a single, concise sentence that immediately communicates the tool's purpose. No unnecessary words or redundancy. It is well-structured for quick understanding.

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 no output schema, the description should hint at the return format or structure. It only says 'Get all styles' without details on what a 'style' entails (e.g., type, properties). This leaves the agent with incomplete context for interpreting results.

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 zero parameters, so the description adds value by specifying the scope ('from the current Figma document'). With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, but the description provides context beyond the schema, earning a 4.

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 action (Get all styles) and the resource (current Figma document). It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools that also involve styles but with different actions (e.g., apply_design_system, compare_design_tokens).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions. Sibling tools like 'css_class_to_figma_style' or 'apply_design_system' might be relevant, but no distinction is made.

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