codegen_design_tokens

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the transformation and does not disclose whether the tool fetches from Figma or requires pre-extracted tokens, whether it is pure, what side effects exist, or how output is returned. The phrase 'from Figma design system' is potentially ambiguous given the required 'tokens' parameter.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It captures the core purpose efficiently and every word contributes to meaning.

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 2-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage, the description is mostly adequate, but it lacks explicit guidance about whether tokens must already be extracted and provided, and it does not clarify the output delivery mechanism. With no output schema and no annotations, a bit more detail would improve completeness.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema; it mentions CSS and TypeScript formats but omits scss and json, which are present in the format enum. The 'tokens' parameter meaning is already covered by the schema description.

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 states a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('CSS variables or TypeScript design tokens from Figma design system'). It clearly differentiates from siblings like figma_extract_design_tokens (extraction vs. generation) and codegen_react_component (tokens vs. components).

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 implies use for generating design tokens from Figma design system data, especially in contrast to figma_extract_design_tokens, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or exclusions. The usage context is mostly inferred from the tool name and siblings.

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