extract_design_tokens

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds valuable behavioral details (spacing tokens sourced from auto-layout padding/gap, inclusion of source node IDs for traceability) but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, potential limitations, or error handling.

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: the first states the core purpose and formats, the second adds a key behavioral nuance, and the third mentions traceability. It is front-loaded and free of fluff.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, output formats, a behavioral nuance, and traceability. It could be slightly more complete by explicitly stating the tool is read-only, but overall it is adequate for the tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema (e.g., 'chosen format' maps to export_format) but does not need to compensate for missing schema info.

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 extracts design tokens (colors, typography, spacing) from a Figma file and exports them in specified formats, distinguishing it from sibling extraction tools like extract_flows or extract_variants.

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 description—it's for extracting design tokens—but there's no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusionary conditions. The description lacks direct sibling comparison or 'use when' language.

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