feuse-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states what the tool does, not how it behaves. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, potential rate limits, error handling, or what happens when directories are created. The description lacks behavioral context beyond the basic functionality.

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, efficient sentence that clearly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and includes just enough detail about the resource types and source context. Every word serves a purpose in this compact formulation.

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 5 parameters (including complex nested objects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, authentication requirements, or behavioral constraints. While concise, it lacks the completeness needed for an agent to understand the full operational context of this multi-parameter tool.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it mentions 'IDs of image or icon nodes' which corresponds to the 'nodes' parameter but provides no extra clarification about format, constraints, or usage patterns.

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 specific action ('Download'), the resource type ('SVG and PNG images'), and the source context ('used in a Figma file based on the IDs of image or icon nodes'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'download-svg-assets' by specifying both SVG and PNG formats and focusing on node IDs rather than asset extraction.

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 implies usage when you have specific Figma node IDs and want to download images, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'download-svg-assets' or 'extract-svg-assets'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage context somewhat open to interpretation.

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