figma_get_token_values

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It implies a safe read and clarifies that values are resolved ('actual values') rather than references, which is genuinely useful. However, it says nothing about truncation behavior of the default 50-item limit, ordering, or what happens when no tokens match the filter.

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 short sentences with zero filler; the purpose leads and the calling context follows. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 simple read-only lookup with three optional, fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers what it returns at a conceptual level and when to reach for it. Only the shape of the returned token records and the effect of `limit` truncation 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented in structured data, and the enum on `type` is self-explanatory. The description's mention of 'colors, spacing, etc.' loosely mirrors the enum but adds no syntax, default, or interaction details. 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get actual values for design tokens') and enumerates examples (colors, spacing), making the output concept concrete. It implicitly separates itself from figma_get_design_system_summary (summary vs. concrete values), though it does not differentiate from near-neighbors like figma_get_variables or figma_export_tokens.

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 sequencing rule: call this after figma_get_design_system_summary, for the purpose of implementation. That is a clear usage context. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or naming alternatives such as figma_export_tokens for bulk/file-level token export.

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