get_brix_design_tokens

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool prefers the Figma Variables API with automatic fallback to the Styles API, which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it does not mention potential failure modes, authentication needs, or return format, which would increase transparency.

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 extremely concise with two sentences. The first sentence clearly states purpose with examples, and the second adds technical detail about API fallback. Every word earns its place.

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 no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is fairly complete. It specifies what is retrieved and the internal logic. It could mention output format or whether filtering is possible, but for a 'get all' tool, it is adequate.

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 no parameters, so schema description coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and the baseline score for zero parameters is 4.

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 verb 'Retrieve', the resource 'all design tokens from BrixUI', and provides examples like colors, spacing, border radius, and typography. It distinguishes its purpose from sibling tools, which focus on components, making it easy for an agent to select correctly.

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?

While explicit when-to-use vs alternatives is not stated, the context is clear: this tool is for retrieving design tokens, and sibling tools are for component-related operations. The description effectively implies usage without needing explicit exclusions.

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