figma_get_design_context

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. 'Retrieve' implies a read-only, non-mutating call and the enumerated return contents (components, tokens, styles, code mappings) add useful transparency about what comes back. However, it says nothing about permissions, limits, pagination, or how filtering by task is performed, leaving meaningful gaps.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core scope front-loaded, followed by a compact, high-signal example. Every element earns its place with no filler.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description does a fair job describing the returned artifacts, but it omits the meaning of `limit` and `roles` and any behavioral constraints. For a 3-parameter retrieval tool with no structured support, this is adequate but incomplete.

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 coverage is only 33%, so the description should compensate more than it does. The example task string ('password reset flow: email, OTP, new password, success') usefully illustrates the `task` parameter format, but `limit` and `roles` are not addressed at all (roles is only documented in the schema), leaving part of the low coverage unresolved.

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?

States a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('Design System parts relevant to a task') and enumerates the payload (components with variants/properties, spacing/color/radius tokens, text styles, code mappings). It differentiates somewhat from siblings via the 'ONLY ... relevant to a task' scoping, though it never explicitly names alternatives like figma_scan_design_system or figma_foundations.

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?

'Use before writing a Design Plan' gives a clear when-to-use trigger, and the worked task example shows the intended input shape. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or naming the sibling tools that also read design-system data, so no explicit exclusions are provided.

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