get_styles

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 implies a read-only operation ('Get') and specifies the scope ('current Figma document'), but it does not disclose potential response size, what constitutes a 'style', or whether the operation has any side effects. It is honest but minimal, adding limited context beyond the tool name.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence: 'Get all styles from the current Figma document'. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 zero-parameter schema and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is reasonably complete for a simple getter. However, it does not describe the return format (e.g., an array of style objects) or clarify what categories of styles (fill, text, etc.) are included, which an agent would need to know to process the result correctly. It is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 zero parameters, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage (vacuously). The description does not need to explain parameter semantics because there are none. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and nothing in the description detracts from that.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource 'all styles' and scopes it to 'current Figma document'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_local_components and get_annotations, making the tool's purpose immediately clear.

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 does not mention that this is for styles only, nor does it point users to sibling tools for other resource types. No contextual cues about typical use cases or exclusions are given.

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