获取 Figma 设计变量 (Design Tokens)

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

注解已声明 readOnlyHint=true、idempotentHint=true 和安全特性。描述中增加了输出示例（token 键值对）和返回值描述，提供了一些操作结果透明度，但未说明速率限制、认证要求或开放世界行为等额外上下文。注解已覆盖安全特性，因此评分 3 是合适的。

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?

结构清晰，含示例、参数说明和返回值说明，句子均简洁。略有冗余（例如同时列出参数名和类型），但整体无冗长内容，且用途说明前置。

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?

对于无输出架构的简单单参数只读工具，描述补充了输出示例和返回值说明，足以让代理正确调用。但由于未解释变量可能不存在时的行为或服务限制，并未达到 5 分。

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?

架构描述覆盖率达 100%，因此参数已在模式中完整记录（包括从 Figma URL 提取的提示）。描述中列出了参数名和类型，但并未超出模式提供额外含义。在模式承担主要说明的情况下，3 分符合基准。

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?

明确以动词+资源开头（'获取...设计变量定义'）并提供具体示例（颜色、间距、字体）。它并未明确区分兄弟姐妹工具如 figma_get_page_context，但核心意图是清晰的。

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?

提到'适合提取设计系统 token'，给出了隐含的使用场景，但未指明何时使用或不使用此工具，也未提及替代方案（例如，获取页面上下文或截图）。

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