figma_get_styles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral difference between REST file styles and plugin local styles, which is valuable. However, it does not mention read-only nature, return format, or potential errors, leaving notable transparency gaps.

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 extremely concise: 'Get styles. fileKey→REST file styles, omit→plugin local styles.' It front-loads the purpose and communicates parameter behavior in a compact, scannable format with zero wasted words.

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 one-parameter read tool, the description covers the essential behavioral distinction and gives sufficient context for invocation. It does not explain return values, but the name 'get_styles' implies a list, and there is no output schema to fill that gap. Overall, it is reasonably complete for its complexity.

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 clearly explains the meaning and effect of the fileKey parameter: providing it fetches REST file styles, omitting it returns plugin local styles. This adds meaningful semantic content beyond the bare 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?

The description uses a specific verb 'get' and resource 'styles', and clarifies two modes based on fileKey, which helps distinguish from siblings like get_style and get_team_styles. However, 'styles' is somewhat ambiguous without specifying paint/text/effect styles, so it's not fully clear.

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?

It gives clear context on parameter behavior (fileKey→REST file styles, omit→plugin local styles), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like get_style or get_team_styles. Usage is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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