figma_get_styles

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the return shape ('organized style definitions with resolved values') and payload-size behavior via verbosity. It does not mention permissions, file-size caveats, or the file-resolution/connection requirement, so it stops short of fully covering behavior for a read tool with zero annotation backing.

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 what/how, then when-to-use, then exclusions, then parameter tips, then a sibling-routing TIP. Every sentence carries distinct decision-relevant information 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?

For a 6-param, all-optional, no-output-schema tool with no annotations, the description covers return content, optional enrichment, payload control, and routing to alternatives. Nothing needed to select or call it correctly is missing, and the schema handles the rest.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds value: it tells the agent to set enrich=true for CSS/Tailwind/Sass examples and notes verbosity controls payload size. That maps parameters to intent rather than restating them, though export_formats/include_usage/include_exports are left to the schema.

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 and resource ('Get all styles') and enumerates the style kinds returned (color, text, effects, grids). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the two neighbors that could be confused with it (variables via figma_get_variables, full extraction via figma_get_design_system_kit).

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?

Gives explicit trigger phrases ('text styles, color palette, design system styles, typography, or style documentation'), an explicit exclusion ('NOT for design tokens/variables'), and a preferred alternative for a broader scenario (figma_get_design_system_kit). The decision tree is complete.

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