figma_get_variables

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds useful framing (scope spans all collections, modes and all four token types) but omits return shape, whether truncated results are signaled, and how the default limit behaves when exceeded.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource scope lands first and the token-type enumeration is compact and informative.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return content, and it does name collections, modes and token value types. It stops short of describing result structure or truncation behavior at the 300-token default, which would matter on large design-token files.

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%, so all three parameters are fully documented in the schema itself (limit default 300, target fileName, collection_name filter). The description adds no syntax, format, or filtering semantics beyond that, so the 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?

States a specific verb (Retrieve) and a precise resource (Figma Variable collections, modes, design tokens) with the token types enumerated. An agent can distinguish it from mutation sibling figma_set_variables_mode or canvas readers like figma_read_canvas without opening any schema.

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 is only implied — the reader infers 'call this when you need design tokens'. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative; the reference to figma_list_targets appears only inside a parameter description, not in the tool description.

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