Extract design tokens

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention whether the tool is read-only (does it modify the Figma file?), authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens on errors. The description only states what it does, not behavioral aspects.

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 two sentences, each earning its place: first sentence defines purpose and outputs, second sentence provides usage advice. No wasted words, front-loaded with key information.

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 has 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the basic purpose and outputs but lacks details on parameter semantics (especially 'depth') and behavioral traits. It is adequate but not comprehensive for an extraction tool with moderate complexity.

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 50% (only figmaUrl has a description). The description adds no extra meaning for the 'depth' parameter, nor does it explain the format of figmaUrl beyond the schema. It mentions 'walk a Figma file/node' but does not clarify how depth controls traversal. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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's action ('Walk a Figma file/node and extract colors, typography, spacing, radii, and shadows') and its output formats (Tailwind config, CSS variables, Antd theme). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_figma_design' and 'convert_figma_to_react' by focusing on token extraction rather than design retrieval or component conversion.

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 provides guidance on when to use the tool ('Wire these in before writing components'), implying use before component development. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives. The sibling tool names give context, but the description itself could be more explicit.

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