pull_design_system

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses prerequisites, return structure ({ tokens, components, styles, lastSync }), and specific error message. While it implies updating the local registry, it does not explicitly state side effects like overwriting existing data. Still, it provides substantial behavioral context.

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?

Concise: four sentences covering purpose, prerequisites, return format, errors, and usage timing. Front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence serves a purpose without 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?

Given zero parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete: it explains what the tool does, prerequisites, error handling, return shape, and provides references to sibling tools for verification and inspection. No gaps detected.

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 input schema has zero parameters, and the description adds no parameter details (none needed). Baseline of 4 applies per rubric for case with no parameters.

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 pulls the full design system from Figma into the local registry, specifying tokens, components, and styles. It distinguishes from siblings like get_tokens (inspection only) and pull_design_system_rest by emphasizing 'full' and the integration with a Figma bridge.

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?

Explicit preconditions (Figma bridge running, plugin connected) with verification via check_bridge_health and start command `memi connect`. Recommends running at session start or after designer changes, and suggests inspection with get_tokens. Also mentions error condition 'Figma not connected'.

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