figma_screenshot

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict them; 'save/read' reinforces a read-oriented behavior. However, the description adds little beyond that—no detail about output format, persistence, caching, or side effects.

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 very short and front-loads the key directive 'MANDATORY,' making it efficient to parse. However, the terseness sacrifices a clear purpose statement and leaves much to inference.

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 no output schema and many sibling tools, the description is incomplete: it does not explain what the PNG contains, how it is returned or saved, how optional parameters interact with the current-selection fallback, or what 'comparing the build' means. An agent would need additional context to invoke this tool confidently.

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 scale, nodeId, and fileKey are already fully documented. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics or usage nuances beyond what the schema provides.

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 a resource (node PNG) and an action (save/read), but it reads as a workflow command—'MANDATORY: save/read the node PNG before comparing the build'—rather than a clear statement of tool function. It does not explicitly say that the tool captures a screenshot of a Figma node, and it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like figma_render.

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 an explicit temporal condition: this tool is mandatory before comparing the build. This gives clear context for when to invoke it, though it does not mention when not to use it or how it compares to alternative tools.

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