get_design_context

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

Despite lacking annotations, the description is highly transparent about the tool's behavior, detailing exactly what the returned markdown tree contains: auto-layout, colors, gradients, effects, typography, tokens, etc. It also notes that defaults are omitted and it's one line per node. However, it does not discuss error handling, permissions, or rate limits.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the purpose. It efficiently packs a long list of features into a readable format using dashes and commas. While verbose due to the extensive feature list, it remains well-structured and avoids 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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description compensates thoroughly by enumerating every design property returned. It covers complexity well but lacks input parameter explanations and usage constraints. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an agent to understand what the tool delivers.

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?

With only 43% schema description coverage, the description adds no additional meaning over the schema's parameter descriptions. It does not explain parameters like url, nodeId, fileKey, or withTokens, which are left to the schema's minimal or missing descriptions. The description focuses entirely on output, not input.

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 this tool is for building code from a Figma design, positioning it as the primary tool and distinguishing it from a separate Figma MCP. It details a comprehensive set of design properties it returns, making its purpose specific and well-defined.

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 claims it's 'THE tool' for code generation but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs siblings like inspect_node, get_canvas_tree, or analyze_design. No when-not-to-use scenarios or alternatives are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer appropriate contexts.

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