rest_get_images

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'high-resolution' and 'cloud rendering engine', which hints at the rendering behavior, but it does not disclose rate limits, cost implications, whether the operation is asynchronous, or what happens if node IDs are invalid. For a rendering tool that likely consumes significant resources, this is a notable gap.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. It is concise and free of filler, though it could be slightly more structured by separating the rendering action from the engine detail.

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 (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return format (e.g., URLs to rendered images), error behavior, or any constraints like maximum node count or file size. An agent would need to inspect the schema and possibly make assumptions about 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds the context that rendering is 'high-resolution' and uses the 'cloud rendering engine', which gives some meaning to the 'scale' and 'format' parameters, but it does not add significant detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Render') and resource ('high-resolution cloud images/exports of frames or components') and names the rendering engine ('Figma Cloud rendering engine'). It is clear about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from the sibling 'export_node_image', which likely has overlapping functionality.

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 usage for rendering frames/components at high resolution via cloud rendering, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'export_node_image'. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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