Plumb · tokens

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, indicating a safe, idempotent read operation. The description adds behavioral details: the token table is deduplicated, uses $-prefixed refs, and has two access modes (plugin vs REST). No contradiction with annotations.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, plugin path, REST path. It is front-loaded with the core definition and uses precise terminology. No 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?

Given the moderate complexity (4 params, no required, no output schema), the description explains the tool's purpose, the two usage modes, and how parameters differ across modes. It omits details about error handling or return format beyond '$-prefixed refs', but that is acceptable without an output schema.

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 covers all 4 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by explaining the conditional usage patterns: plugin mode uses id or name (no fileKey), REST mode uses fileKey and id. It also mentions that url can be pasted for auto-extraction, but this is in the schema. Overall, the description clarifies how parameters relate to each other.

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 specifies the action ('Extract'), the resource ('the deduplicated design-token table for a Figma node'), and the output format ('as the $-prefixed refs'). It also distinguishes from siblings by focusing explicitly on design tokens, unlike plumb_assets or plumb_describe.

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 description provides explicit guidance on when to use the plugin path (pass id or name, no fileKey) vs the REST path (pass fileKey + id). It also advises to build with these tokens, not magic numbers. It does not explicitly list alternatives among the many siblings, but the use case is clearly scoped.

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