figma_get_variables

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool can consume tokens and that filtering reduces usage, which is a useful behavioral hint. However, it omits other behavioral details such as pagination limits, whether includeValues defaults to true, and the lack of side effects. This is minimal but non-tautological.

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 two sentences long and immediately front-loads the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first states what it does, the second advises on usage. There is no wasted words or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

With 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It explains the basic purpose and token-saving filter, but does not cover important context like the relationship between variables and collections, default behavior of includeValues, or how it differs from library-related siblings. The mention of 'design tokens' helps, but overall it is incomplete for a tool with this 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?

The schema covers 80% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds a link between filtering and token reduction, which adds meaning beyond the raw parameter names. However, it does not mention the 'limit' or 'includeValues' parameters, leaving some context to the schema. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the primary function: 'Get local variables and collections (design tokens).' The verb 'Get' with the specific resource 'local variables and collections' is unambiguous, and the qualifier 'local' distinguishes it from sibling tools like figma_get_library_variables.

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 instruction to 'Filter by type or name to reduce token usage' provides useful context for using filters but does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over alternatives or any exclusions. The concept of 'local' is implied but not compared to sibling library-related tools.

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