figma_node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It correctly identifies the operation as a read (non-destructive). However, it does not disclose that the depth parameter controls hierarchical traversal, nor does it mention potential performance implications or that the depth parameter limits the output. This is a notable gap for a parameter that can limit the result size.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence defines the purpose and scope, the second provides usage instructions. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 read tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main use case (verification) and targeting (nodeId). However, it omits the depth parameter's role, which is critical for controlling the amount of data returned. The lack of output schema means the description should perhaps hint at the structure, but it lists the included properties, which is sufficient.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains nodeId ('Pass nodeId, or omit for the whole current page'), but the depth parameter (integer min 1 max 20) is not mentioned at all. The description adds value for one parameter but leaves the other unexplained, making it partially helpful.

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 verb 'read back' and the resource 'node's full structure', listing specific properties (position, size, fills, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like figma_delete_node or figma_patch_node by being a read-only verification 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?

The description explains when to use (for verification) and how to use it ('Pass nodeId, or omit for the whole current page'). It implies this is the read tool among siblings, but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives.

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