figma_get_design_system_rules

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Extract' implies a read operation but does not disclose what exactly is returned, whether it is scoped to a file/team, or any permissions needed. Minimal behavioral detail beyond the verb.

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?

A single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action verb and contains no redundant wording. Every word earns its place.

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?

Despite being a no-param tool, the description does not specify output contents, scope, or what 'rules' encompasses. With no output schema to fall back on, the description is insufficient to fully understand the tool's capabilities, especially given the large number of sibling tools with overlapping functions.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per the rubric, 0 params earns a baseline of 4; the description adds nothing about parameters, but none exist to explain.

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 uses the verb 'Extract' with resource 'design system rules' and gives examples (colors, typography, spacing), making the core purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling tools like figma_get_styles or figma_get_variables, which also retrieve design system elements.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states a general action, leaving the agent unsure whether to pick this over more specific retrieval tools (e.g., figma_get_styles, figma_get_variables) or when a broader 'rules' view is intended.

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