figma_reference

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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the 'Offline' trait and the content scope, which gives some behavioral context, but it doesn't disclose specifics like list behavior on omitted name or return content format. Given annotation coverage, this meets a baseline without adding much beyond it.

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 leads with the core identity ('Offline API reference') and enumerates topics without filler. It is appropriately small and front-loaded, with no redundant phrasing.

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?

For a single-optional-parameter, read-only reference tool with no output schema, the description names the resource and its topic areas, and the schema covers invocation details. It lacks explicit instruction that omitting name lists all entries, but that is already in the schema; the main gap is unclear differentiation from sibling tools, which is more a usage-guideline issue. Overall it is sufficient for the tool's low complexity.

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 parameter is fully documented in the schema with 'API name or special topic; omit to list names.' The description contributes no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 identifies the tool as an 'Offline API reference' and lists the domains it covers (capabilities, fidelity, variable scopes, workflows), which signals a lookup/reference function. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'query' or 'look up,' and it does not differentiate itself from siblings like figma_spec or figma_inspect, so an agent must infer the action from the noun.

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 given on when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as figma_spec or figma_inspect. The term 'Offline' hints at a network-independent use case, but no explicit when/when-not conditions or alternative tool references appear.

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