memoire

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. It effectively describes error behaviors ('Throws "Figma not connected" if no plugin is connected', 'Network timeouts surface as bridge errors'), prerequisites ('Figma bridge must be running and a plugin must be connected'), and the return format on success. It does not mention rate limits or destructive effects, but for a tool with zero annotations, this is a strong disclosure of key operational traits.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by prerequisites, return values, error behavior, and usage guidelines. Each sentence adds value, such as clarifying prerequisites and linking to sibling tools, though it could be slightly more concise by integrating some details (e.g., merging error behavior with prerequisites).

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 complexity (involving external systems like Figma and a bridge), no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is highly complete. It covers purpose, prerequisites, return values, error handling, and usage context, providing all necessary information for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without relying on structured fields.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific information, which is appropriate since there are no parameters to document, and it focuses instead on usage context and behavioral details.

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 specific action ('Pull'), resource ('full design system from Figma'), and destination ('into the local registry'), with explicit details about what is pulled (tokens, components, styles). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'get_tokens' (which inspects specific values) and 'sync_design_tokens' (which likely handles incremental updates).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('at the start of any session that touches design tokens or component styles, or after a designer has made changes in Figma') and when not to use it (implied by suggesting alternatives like 'get_tokens' for inspection afterward). It also references prerequisites and a related tool ('check_bridge_health') for verification, offering clear context for usage.

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