Export design tokens

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the return shape (tokensByMode keys like 'Color/Dark', collections with modes lists, modes and modeCount), hex color emission, and the includeModes default. It omits any note on permissions or whether it is purely read-only, but 'Export' plus the detail given makes behavior largely predictable.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then layers output structure and parameter behavior efficiently. It is dense and slightly long with em-dash asides, but each clause carries distinct information and nothing is wasted.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the missing return-value contract in detail (tokensByMode, collections, modes, modeCount) plus parameter behavior. Only auth/permission context is absent, which is minor for an export/read operation.

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?

Schema coverage is only 50% (includeModes is undocumented in the schema), and the description compensates by explaining includeModes' default, its per-mode output effect, and how to disable it. The collections parameter adds the 'name or id' and response-size rationale beyond the schema text.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: exports local Figma variables as a W3C-style Design Tokens object. It further disambiguates scope (nested by collection/variable name, plus a flat variables list) so it is clearly distinct from siblings like import_tokens and list_variables.

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?

Gives concrete conditional guidance for both parameters: includeModes=false to skip per-mode views, and passing collections 'keeps the response small on large files'. However, it never names an alternative tool (e.g., list_variables) or states when to prefer this over them, so it stops short of full when-vs-what guidance.

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