pull_design_system

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It details prerequisites, error behaviors (disconnection, network timeouts), and return structure. The pull operation implies writing to local registry, which is clearly communicated.

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?

Description is concise and well-structured: summary line, prerequisites, return format, error behavior, usage guidance. Every sentence adds value, front-loaded with key info.

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 fully compensates by providing return structure, error cases, prerequisites, and usage context. Nothing essential is missing.

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?

There are no parameters; the input schema is empty. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, but it adds no parameter-specific meaning. Baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 action ('Pull the full design system'), specifies the source ('from Figma'), and lists what is pulled ('tokens, components, styles'). It distinguishes from siblings like pull_design_system_rest and get_tokens.

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?

Provides explicit prerequisites (Figma bridge, plugin), references check_bridge_health as a preliminary step, and gives specific scenarios for use (start of session, after designer changes). Also suggests follow-up with get_tokens.

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