figma_rules

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the behavior of aggregating current design data into a markdown block without modifying anything. The phrasing implies a read-only operation, and the usage note suggests it is safe and idempotent. It lacks explicit mention of permissions or side effects, but the described behavior is clear.

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 three sentences and front-loaded with the core function. It packs essential information—what it aggregates, the output format, and when to use it—without any filler or redundancy.

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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description gives a solid overview of the expected output (markdown block with tokens, styles, variables, components). It doesn't specify the exact markdown structure, but the enumerated contents and usage scenario provide sufficient context for an agent to invoke it 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 description coverage is 100% for the single optional sessionId parameter. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, only mentioning that omitting it auto-selects the current file. Since the schema already explains the parameter, this score is the baseline.

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 generates a design system rule sheet by aggregating color tokens, typography, variables, and components. It uses a specific verb ('generate') and resource ('design system rule sheet'), and distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning the exact content and the equivalent official tool name.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: 'Call once at the start of a design-to-code session' and 'Re-run when the design system changes.' It also states the purpose—giving the AI full context—which clarifies when to use this tool over others that read or write specific parts of the file.

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