inspect_node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full weight. It discloses the inspection behavior, return structure, and side effects (none implied). It could explicitly state it is read-only, but 'inspect' strongly implies no mutation.

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?

Two sentences: first packs the core functionality and output, second provides actionable scope guidance and use-case. No fluff or 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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the tool's purpose and behavior but omits parameter details and exact output format (e.g., 'style gaps' not explained). Middle-of-the-road 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 0%, but the description adds context for scope and maxSuggestions (via 'top remap suggestions'). Other parameters (url, nodeId, fileKey, themeName) are not explained, though they may be inferred from typical Figma node identification. The description partially compensates for low coverage.

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 deep-inspects a Figma node with a specific verb and resource, enumerates return values (applied tokens, broken references, remap suggestions, style gaps), and distinguishes itself from siblings like get_node_tokens by mentioning it backs the Inspect tab for end-to-end audits.

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 explicitly tells when to use it ('audit a frame's token coverage end-to-end') and how to set scope='subtree'. It does not list alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is clear enough among the sibling set.

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