Capture Figma design

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool writes the flattened node list to disk and returns a runId, and states 'Never returns the node tree.' This is good, but it lacks details on authentication needs, rate limits, or any side effects beyond disk writes.

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 two sentences long with no wasted words. It front-loads the main purpose and then adds important details about input formats and output behavior. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers inputs, side effect (writes to disk), and output (runId). It mentions that the node tree is never returned, which helps manage expectations. Missing details like file format or location could be added, but overall it's adequate.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by clarifying that 'figma' can be a frame link or bare file key, and that 'nodeId' is optional if already in the link. This goes beyond the schema's minimal descriptions.

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 the tool's action: 'Fetch a Figma frame and derive its design token set.' It specifies inputs (Figma link or file key + nodeId) and outputs (runId, writes to disk). The verb 'capture' and resource 'design' are distinct from siblings like 'check_tokens' or 'capture_build'.

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 explicitly says 'Accepts a pasted Figma frame link or a bare file key plus nodeId,' providing clear input format guidance. However, it does not explain when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'capture_build' or 'run_design_qa', nor does it mention when not to use it.

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