figma_scan_design_system

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose real behavioral traits: it normalizes and infers semantic roles, caches to disk (a side effect), and returns a compact summary rather than the full dump. However it omits whether the file is mutated, permission/auth needs, cache staleness behavior, and cost of a full scan.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and scope, two sentences total, no filler. The parenthetical '(not the full dump)' and 'Use refresh=true...' each earn their place. Slightly dense enumeration of artifacts but not padded.

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?

For a complex scanner with no output schema and 4 params, the description covers what is scanned, the caching behavior, and the shape of the return (compact summary). It stops short of describing summary contents or read-only guarantees, but is largely sufficient to invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 75%; reload, maxInstances, and includeLibraries are already documented in the schema. The description usefully compensates for the undocumented refresh parameter by explaining 'refresh=true after the DS changed,' but adds little for the other three.

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 (scan) and resource (open Figma file's design system), and enumerates exactly what is collected: components, component sets/variants/properties, variables with modes, text/paint/effect styles, and library components. It is clear and non-tautological, but it never distinguishes itself from near siblings like figma_foundations, figma_inspect, or figma_analyze_design.

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 final sentence gives one concrete usage rule: 'Use refresh=true after the DS changed.' That is a useful trigger, but there is no guidance on when to reach for this tool versus the sibling scan/inspect tools, and no statement of prerequisites (an open Figma file).

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