export_tokens

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

The description claims an export operation, which is non-destructive and read-only, but the annotations set destructiveHint: true and readOnlyHint: false, directly contradicting the description. This is a serious inconsistency.

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?

Two sentences cover purpose, resource, output formats, and usage context with no wasted words. The information is front-loaded and 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?

The description explains what the tool does and its output, but given the annotation contradiction and lack of output schema, it does not fully disclose the tool's actual behavior or side effects.

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 single parameter 'format' is fully described in the schema with 100% coverage. The description adds value by explicitly stating the default ('json') and options ('json or css'), clarifying the expected values.

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 action (export), the resource (design tokens including variables and paint styles), and the output formats (JSON or CSS). It distinguishes from the many sibling tools, none of which perform this specific export function.

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 'Ideal for bridging Figma variables into your codebase' provides a clear use case. However, it does not explicitly exclude scenarios where this tool should not be used or mention alternatives.

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