get_node_info

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'get detailed information' without mentioning side effects (none expected), authorization needs, data volume, or performance implications. The complex options affecting output are not summarized.

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 one sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It is concise and contains no redundant words. However, it could include more context without sacrificing conciseness.

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 tool's complexity (multiple boolean options affecting output), no output schema, and lack of behavioral context, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what 'detailed information' includes, how options interact, or the nature of the response.

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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for all parameters, including the nested options object. The tool description adds no extra meaning. Since schema_coverage is listed as 50% (though actual coverage appears higher), baseline is 3; the description does not compensate for any gaps.

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 action ('get'), the resource ('detailed information about a specific node'), and the scope ('in Figma'). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_nodes_info' (for multiple nodes) and 'get_document_info' (for document-level info). It is specific and unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'get_nodes_info' for multiple nodes or other tools for different operations. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., how to obtain a nodeId) or typical use cases.

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