figma_reference

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds context about the offline nature and specialized topics, which is useful but does not disclose further behavioral traits such as whether results are cached or how the output is structured. Given annotations cover the main safety aspects, the description provides moderate added value.

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 short and front-loaded with the main purpose. It quickly lists special topics. It could be slightly improved by avoiding the colon-heavy list format, but overall it is efficient with no wasted words.

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 has 1 optional parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering read-only safety, the description is fairly complete for a reference lookup tool. However, it does not mention what the output format is (e.g., text, structured data) or whether it returns full documentation or summaries, leaving some gaps for an AI agent.

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%, with the parameter 'name' already described as 'API name, capabilities or workflow topic; omit to list API names.' The description reiterates the topics but does not add semantic meaning beyond the schema, resulting in baseline score of 3.

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 clearly states it is an 'Offline Plugin API reference' and specifies the special topics it covers. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like figma_run (execution) or figma_render (rendering), but does not explicitly differentiate its purpose from those siblings.

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 provides a list of special topics but does not give explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like figma_connect or figma_spec. It implies usage for API reference lookups but lacks when-not-to-use or alternative suggestions.

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