figma_inspect

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, non-mutating read operation. The description adds that output is YAML and covers geometry, paint, effects, component context, and text style. However, it does not mention pagination, rate limits, or what happens if the node has missing properties, which would be useful context beyond annotations.

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 concise sentence that clearly states the action, scope, and output format. Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy or filler. It is front-loaded with the key verb and resource.

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 moderate complexity (2 params, 1 required, no output schema, no enums, annotations present, 11 siblings), the description covers the core purpose and output format. It could mention return value structure since there is no output schema, but the YAML name implies self-describing output. It is mostly complete for the agent to select this tool over siblings.

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% – the schema already documents nodeId and fileKey with clear descriptions including allowed formats (bare key, Figma URL). The description does not add new parameter meaning; it repeats the YAML output format but not, e.g., that nodeId must be URL-encoded or that fileKey default behavior (current file?) if omitted.

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 ('Inspect') and clearly identifies the resource ('one node's geometry, paint, effects, component context and text style') with the output format ('as YAML'). This distinguishes it well from siblings like figma_render, figma_screenshot, and figma_spec, which also operate on nodes but with different outputs.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives like figma_spec (which might provide design specifications) or figma_selection (which selects nodes). The description implies singular node inspection but lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., node must exist, file must be connected) or exclusion cases (e.g., large nodes).

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