figma_get_design_system_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose key behavior: it returns summary-only data, omits full details, and is token-optimized. However, it does not describe read-only safety, permission requirements, or caching behavior in the description itself; caching is only implied by the forceRefresh schema.

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 short and front-loaded, leading with what the tool returns before explaining usage. There is minor redundancy between 'compact overview' and 'optimized for minimal token usage,' but no material waste.

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 one-parameter summary tool with no output schema, the description names the main return contents and clarifies the summary-only scope. It is complete enough to call correctly, though it could be slightly richer about the returned shape or caching implications.

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 100% and the single forceRefresh parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its caching and extraction-time tradeoff. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema's own documentation, so baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource: getting a compact overview of the design system. It specifies exactly what is returned (categories, component counts, token collection names) and explicitly distinguishes itself from figma_search_components for detailed lookup.

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?

It gives clear usage ordering: use this first for an overview, then use figma_search_components for specific components. It does not mention when to avoid this tool or route to other design-system siblings such as token value or component detail tools.

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