get_local_variables

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add useful return-shape context ('Color values are returned as hex, aliases as { aliasOf }'), which is valuable since there is no output schema. But it omits other behavioral traits such as what happens when the document has no variables or whether remote/library variables are included.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the most decision-relevant detail (return format). No filler or redundancy.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only getter with no output schema, the description covers the essential scope ('local', 'current document') and the notable return encodings (hex colors, aliasOf aliases). It is close to complete, though scope questions like local-only vs remote variables could be clearer.

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 takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. Schema coverage is 100% and there is nothing for the description to compensate for regarding 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Get all local variable collections (with modes) and variables in the current document.' This clearly distinguishes it from get_styles and get_local_components, which retrieve different design artifacts. However, it does not name those siblings explicitly, so it falls short of a 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?

Usage is implied by the resource: an agent can infer this is the read tool for local variables. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives (e.g. get_styles for styles), and no preconditions stated. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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