figma_get_text_styles

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 useful traits — local-only scope, current-file scope, and the exact payload fields — and 'Get' signals a read. But it says nothing about what happens when the file has no text styles, whether library styles are excluded by design, or ordering/pagination of results.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what is fetched, then what is returned, then how to consume the IDs. Every sentence carries information; nothing is padding.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must sketch return contents, which it does (IDs, names, font info, sizes). For a parameterless read tool that is nearly complete; only edge cases such as empty files or library-scoped styles are left implicit.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly does not invent arguments and instead explains the only variable that matters — which file/scope the results come from.

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 with tight scope: 'all local text styles in the current file', plus a list of what is returned (IDs, names, font info, sizes). It narrows scope to text styles, which implicitly separates it from figma_get_styles, but never names that sibling so the distinction must be inferred.

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 an explicit downstream use case: pull these IDs to set textStyleId on text nodes via figma_execute. That anchors when to call it. It stops short of stating exclusions, e.g. what to call for library/published styles or for non-text styles.

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