figma_spec

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

Annotations already supply readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds 'Copy; never invent' reinforcing factual fidelity, but does not elaborate on the openWorldHint (e.g., how much data to expect, pagination, or performance implications). No contradiction with 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 concise with two short sentences and a tagline. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence is slightly redundant but not harmful. Every word serves a purpose, though it could be more compact by merging the two steps into one clear statement.

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?

With 8 parameters and no output schema, the description fails to explain the return format, structure, or how to interpret results. The instruction 'Map structure, then pull style by node id' is unclear because the tool handles both phases via the phase parameter. An agent would struggle to understand what output to expect.

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 each parameter is documented in the schema. The tool description does not add extra detail beyond the schema; it only hints at the phase parameter indirectly ('pull style by node id'). Baseline 3 is appropriate as no additional semantic value is provided.

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 specifies 'Exact per-layer text, identity, layout, native CSS, paint, token and asset facts', clearly indicating the tool extracts detailed specification data from Figma layers. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like figma_render or figma_screenshot. However, the phrase 'Map structure, then pull style by node id' inaccurately implies a two-step process not required by the tool.

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use figma_spec vs. siblings like figma_inspect or figma_run. The only usage hint is 'Copy; never invent', which is a behavioral instruction rather than a selection criterion. An agent would need to infer purpose from the description alone.

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