figma_docs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the default behavior (no-args returns quick-start + critical rules), what each section returns, and the ordering constraint relative to figma_write. This is rich contextual transparency for a read-only documentation tool.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: it opens with the main purpose, immediately instructs to call with no args first, then lists the sections with parenthetical details, and ends with a critical rule. Every sentence earns its place; no wasted words.

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 tool with a single optional parameter and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers invocation patterns, section-specific content, and the workflow constraint. An agent has all necessary information to call the tool correctly.

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 100% and the schema already gives useful descriptions for the 'section' parameter. The tool description adds extra detail by enumerating example contents for each section (e.g., 'design principles, token rules, layer order' for rules), helping the agent choose the right section. This goes beyond the schema, so 4 is appropriate.

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's purpose: 'Get the API reference and design rules for figma_write.' It is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings by positioning it as the documentation/pre-requisite tool for figma_write, and it lists concrete content sections.

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?

Usage guidance is explicit and actionable: 'Call with no args first' then 'load specific sections as needed.' It also provides a hard rule: 'Always call figma_docs BEFORE any figma_write code.' This tells the agent exactly when and how to use the tool, including a workflow prerequisite.

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