get_styles

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' suggests a read-only operation, and 'all styles' indicates comprehensive retrieval, but it does not explicitly state that it is non-mutating, describe the return format, or note any limitations (e.g., only certain style types).

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 a single, concise sentence that immediately states the action and scope. Every word contributes value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 the tool's minimal complexity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete enough for an agent to understand the operation. It could be enhanced by enumerating style types (e.g., fill, text, effect), but this is not strictly necessary for a basic retrieval tool.

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, so the description has no parameter semantics to clarify. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description adequately explains what is being retrieved.

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 'Get all styles from the current Figma document' clearly identifies the action (get), the resource (styles), and the scope (current Figma document). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, none of which target styles specifically.

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?

The description implies this should be used when an agent needs to retrieve styles from the current document, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide any exclusions. For a simple getter, this implied usage is sufficient but not explicit.

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