Get the slide grid

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint=true annotation, the description adds rich context: the structure of returned data (rows, sections, per-slide fields), what 'unsupported' means for this Figma build, behavior on an empty deck (no rows until figma_create_slides), pagination by slide with limit/cursor, and that it never reads opaque rows. This significantly extends the annotation's safety profile.

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 dense but well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by output shape, optional flags, and routing. It is longer than average but every sentence adds functional information; there is little redundant content.

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 seven parameters, lack of output schema, and the complexity of slide grid semantics, the description covers everything an agent needs: return structure, pagination, empty-deck behavior, unsupported features, and pointers to related tools for slide contents. No use of output_schema to offload return details, so the description carries the full burden well.

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%, so all seven parameters already have descriptions, and the description elaborates on the semantics of includeSummary, includeTransitions, rowIndex, and pagination in prose. However, it doesn't add syntax or format details beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 for fully covered schemas is appropriate—the prose mirrors the schema rather than extending it.

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 and resource: reading a Figma Slides deck as a grid, with rows as sections and slides in presentation order. It explicitly positions itself as the entry point ('start here in a deck'), distinguishing it from the other slide tools like figma_set_slide_grid or figma_move_slides.

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?

It gives clear when-to-use guidance ('start here in a deck') and routes the agent to appropriate alternatives for deeper inspection: figma_get_design_context or figma_scan_text_nodes for slide layers, and figma_export_node for slide pictures. It also flags the editor restriction ('Slides only').

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