scan_text_nodes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what it returns, whether it recursively scans all descendants, or any side effects. 'Scan' could be interpreted as listing, counting, or extracting, leaving the behavior opaque.

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 with no redundancies or irrelevant information. Every word earns its place, and the key information (action, resource, scope) is front-loaded.

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?

While the tool is simple with only one parameter, the absence of an output schema means the description should clarify what 'scan' returns (e.g., a list of text nodes, their contents, or IDs). It also fails to mention recursion depth or whether the operation only considers the node itself or its subtree. Given these gaps, the description is not complete enough for an agent to reliably predict the tool's behavior.

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 covers 100% of the parameter (nodeId), so the baseline is 3. The description adds 'selected' to describe the node, which is a minor semantic clarification but also introduces potential ambiguity. It does not provide extra details like the expected format (e.g., Figma node ID string) beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Scan') and resource ('text nodes') with a scope ('in the selected Figma node'), which clearly distinguishes it from broader sibling tools like scan_nodes_by_types. The term 'selected' is slightly ambiguous (could imply current UI selection rather than the nodeId parameter), but the core purpose is clear.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as scan_nodes_by_types or get_nodes_info. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned. The description implies a general scanning action but provides no explicit usage context.

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