get_nodes_info

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 merely says 'get detailed information' without stating what details are included, whether any authentication is needed, or any side effects (though it is clearly a read operation). It adds very little beyond the tool name and gives no specifics about return behavior or limitations.

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 sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource and is appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete. It clearly identifies the operation and the resource, and the schema covers the parameter. However, it does not describe what 'detailed information' includes, which would be helpful since there is no output schema.

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 has 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'nodeIds', which is documented as 'Array of node IDs to get information about'. The description adds no additional parameter information, but since schema coverage is high, a baseline of 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 'Get detailed information about multiple nodes in Figma' has a specific verb ('get'), a clear resource ('nodes'), and explicitly scopes to 'multiple nodes'. This not only states what the tool does but also distinguishes it from the singular sibling 'get_node_info'.

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 when multiple nodes need information, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when to prefer this over the singular 'get_node_info'. The context is clear from the word 'multiple', but there is no explicit guidance or exclusion.

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