pull_design_system_rest

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it fetches design data via REST, requires specific environment variables, returns a structured object, and can fail with specific error codes. It also notes it is headless and does not require a plugin. This is comprehensive for a read-only tool.

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 three sentences with a bullet-like line for errors and usage. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, every sentence adds essential information, and no words are wasted. Structure is clear and scannable.

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 and no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, return type, error conditions, and operational context (CI/headless). It provides everything an agent needs to decide and invoke this tool correctly.

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 zero parameters and 100% schema coverage. The description adds value by documenting external dependencies (env vars) that are not in the schema, guiding the agent on setup. For no-parameter tools, the baseline is 4, and the description meets it well.

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 it pulls the design system from Figma via REST API, explicitly distinguishing it from the plugin-based 'pull_design_system' sibling. The verb 'pull' and resource 'design system from Figma' are specific and unambiguous.

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 specifies prerequisites (FIGMA_TOKEN and FIGMA_FILE_KEY env vars) and recommends use in CI/headless. It also mentions the equivalent CLI command, providing context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly compare with every sibling or state when not to use it, slightly reducing clarity in exclusion.

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