figma_get_team_styles

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that only 'published' styles are returned and that they are scoped to a team, but it omits details such as pagination behavior, return format, or whether unpublished/team-private styles are excluded beyond the 'published' qualifier.

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, deliberately worded sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the action and object, and every word adds meaning. While it is terse, this dimension rewards appropriate minimalism without waste.

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?

The tool has 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description provides only a high-level phrase. It lacks usage guidance, parameter semantics, and any indication of what the returned styles look like or how pagination works. This is inadequate for an agent to select and invoke the tool confidently, especially given many sibling style-related tools.

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% and the description does not compensate. It does not mention 'teamId' or 'pageSize', nor explain that pageSize controls pagination. The only implicit clue is 'from a team' hinting at teamId, but this is insufficient given two parameters.

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 ('published styles from a team'), clearly indicating the tool's scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like figma_get_styles by specifying 'from a team', though it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives.

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?

The phrase 'from a team' implies the tool is for team-level style retrieval, providing context on when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as file-level get_styles, leaving room for ambiguity.

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