figma_get_variable_defs

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

Annotations are absent, so the description itself must convey behavior. The GET endpoint indicates a non-mutating read, and 'Local (and optionally published)' describes the data scope returned. However, it does not disclose pagination, errors, auth requirements, or the structure of the returned variable definitions, leaving the behavioral picture thin.

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 compact sentence with no filler and it leads with the main scope distinction (local vs published). It is efficient and well-organized, though the brevity means some behavioral context is omitted and penalized elsewhere.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with fully described parameters, this is minimally adequate: the core resource and the local/published option are stated. But with no output schema or annotations, it leaves the return payload, the relationship between url and fileKey, and when includePublished matters unspecified.

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?

All three parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the schema already carries the semantic load. The tool description only echoes the 'published' concept and adds no new detail about url/fileKey precedence or includePublished behavior. Baseline 3 applies.

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 identifies the resource ('variables') and the scope ('Local (and optionally published)'), and the parenthetical 'GET /v1/files/:key/variables/...' makes the retrieval action explicit. It is clear enough to avoid confusing this with the other Figma tools, though it never states the action as a verb and doesn't explicitly differentiate 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?

No when-to-use guidance or alternative tools are mentioned. The only contextual hint is 'optionally published', which maps to includePublished but does not explain when to enable it. An agent must infer from the tool name and sibling list that this is the way to read variable definitions.

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