figma_get_style

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. 'Get' implies read-only, and 'published style' adds a resource constraint. However, it doesn't disclose return format, error behavior, or any permissions. It's minimally transparent but not full.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds value: 'Get', 'published', 'style', 'by key'. It's appropriately concise for a simple read operation.

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 getter, the description is adequate, but there is no output schema, no annotations, and no context about return values or distinctions from sibling tools. It leaves significant gaps for an agent to infer behavior, especially compared to related tools like figma_get_styles.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It tells the agent that the style is fetched by a key, which maps to the styleKey parameter, but it doesn't explain the key's format, how to obtain it, or constraints. The parameter name itself carries most of the meaning.

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 a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('published style'), and a qualifier ('by key'). It distinguishes from siblings like figma_get_styles (plural) and figma_import_style_by_key (imports vs gets).

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 such as figma_get_styles or figma_import_style_by_key. The only implication is from the singular/plural naming, which isn't in the description. There are no exclusions or contextual cues.

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