figmad-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what data is retrieved but doesn't describe how the tool behaves: e.g., whether it returns all tokens or a subset, if there are rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operation.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by specifics on included data. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the action and resource, the second clarifies the scope. There's no waste or redundancy, making it highly efficient.

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 tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers what the tool does but lacks behavioral details like return format or constraints. For a read operation with no structured fields to rely on, it should do more to be fully complete, but it meets the basic threshold.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add param info, and it correctly avoids mentioning any. Baseline for 0 params is 4, as it's complete in this regard without unnecessary details.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get design tokens/variables from a Figma file.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('design tokens/variables'), and distinguishes the type of data (colors, spacing, tokenized values) from siblings like get_components or get_styles. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from get_file or get_node, which could also retrieve file data, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose get_variables over get_styles (which might overlap) or get_file (which might include broader file data), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied by the purpose but not explicitly stated.

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