get_variables

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavior. It simply says 'Get variables' without mentioning that it is a read-only operation, whether authentication is needed, what the API returns (e.g., variable modes, resolved values), or any rate/error behavior. This is a significant gap for a tool that interacts with an external API.

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, well-structured sentence that leads with the main action and resource, and adds the API version context in parentheses. It is concise, front-loaded, and has zero filler.

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 single simple parameter and no output schema, so the description is minimally adequate for basic use. However, it lacks explanation of the return payload, pagination limits, or whether both local and published variables are fetched, so it is not fully self-sufficient for an agent to anticipate tool output.

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 already documents figmaUrl as 'Figma file URL (any format)' with 100% coverage. The description adds 'from a Figma file' and 'new Figma Variables API', but this does not materially deepen understanding of the parameter beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema coverage.

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') and the resource ('variables and variable collections') from a Figma file, using the new Figma Variables API. This is distinct from sibling tools like extract_styles or get_assets, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool retrieves.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., whether a token is required), and no exclusions. It merely describes the function without specifying context, so the agent gets no help in deciding between this and sibling tools.

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