Get Figma nodes

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the ethical bar is lower. The 'GET' verb and the mode list (trim|summary|full) are consistent with a read-only fetch and give a bit of functional context, but the description adds little detail about payload size behavior, limits, or results beyond what the schema properties already explain.

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?

A single compact sentence that leads with the endpoint and the core selection mechanism, followed by the mode feature. There is no filler, and every word 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 5-parameter tool with no output schema and an unexplained 'geometry' parameter, the description is too thin: it gives no guidance on selection (why get_nodes vs find_nodes vs get_file), no mention of the undocumented parameter, and no expectations for results other than vague 'payload size' hints. The annotations cover safety, but the operational context is incomplete.

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 80%, and the description only reiterates the mode values already in the schema. It does not clarify the undocumented 'geometry' property or add format details for ids/file that aren't already in the schema. With high coverage, a baseline 3 is appropriate; the description neither compensates for the 20% gap nor conflicts with the schema.

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 states the verb (GET), the resource (nodes in a file), and the scope ('specific nodes by id'), which lets an agent distinguish it from whole-file retrieval like get_file. It does not, however, contrast itself with find_nodes or get_design_context_lite, so sibling differentiation is partial rather than explicit.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool instead of alternatives. With siblings like find_nodes, get_file, and get_design_context_lite all dealing with node access, the agent must infer from the name and endpoint when this tool is the right choice; the description offers no when/when-not conditions.

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