pull_design_system

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: return format (JSON with counts and timestamp), error cases ('Figma not connected', network timeouts as bridge errors), and prerequisites. This is comprehensive for a tool with no parameters.

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 with clear sections: purpose, prerequisites, return format, error behavior, and usage guidance. It is front-loaded with the main action and every sentence adds value. No redundancy.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description provides all necessary context: what the tool does, prerequisites, return structure, error handling, and when to use it. It is fully self-contained.

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?

No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-specific info, which is appropriate. Baseline for 0 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 'Pull the full design system from Figma into the local registry' with a specific verb and resource. It enumerates what is included (tokens, components, styles) and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_tokens and pull_design_system_rest.

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 when-to-use guidance: 'at the start of any session that touches design tokens or component styles, or after a designer has made changes'. Also lists prerequisites (Figma bridge) and suggests checking bridge health first. Does not explicitly state when not to use or list all alternatives, but the context is clear.

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