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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses little beyond the existence of an optional save. It never says whether the SVG is returned inline or only written to disk, whether existing files are overwritten, or what permissions/access the Figma file requires.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the core action and the optional side effect are both stated immediately.

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 six-parameter tool that can write files to disk, with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits return format (inline SVG vs. file path), side effects of saving, and any interaction between save, fileName, and outputDir.

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 all six parameters are already documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description adds only the 'optionally save' framing, which loosely maps to the save flag but adds no syntax or format detail beyond 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?

States a specific verb (Export) and resource (a Figma node as SVG), which is concrete and distinguishable from the PNG-rendering sibling by format. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with render_node_png or the cache tools, so sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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 phrase 'optionally save it' hints that a save mode exists, but there is no statement of when to choose this tool over render_node_png, the cache tools, or migrate_all_svgs. No prerequisites, conditions, or alternatives are named.

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

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 implies cache semantics but says nothing about staleness, cache lifetime, whether an empty result means 'never fetched', permissions, or error behavior for a tool whose entire point is returning stored data.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource being retrieved is the first thing read.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should describe the shape of the returned component data and what an empty cache yields; it does not. For a zero-parameter read tool this is a modest but real gap.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate, and the schema is trivially complete.

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?

States a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('previously fetched Figma components data'), and the word 'previously fetched' usefully distinguishes it from live-fetch siblings like get_figma_component. It doesn't, however, explicitly contrast itself with get_component_by_name or list_svg_cache, so the agent must infer the routing.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of when the cache is populated, and no exclusion guidance. The only implicit signal is 'previously fetched', which the agent must interpret on its own.

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

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 does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait beyond the schema: results come from cached data rather than a live Figma fetch, which implies possible staleness. However, it says nothing about what happens when the name is not found, whether matching is exact or fuzzy, or response shape.

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 efficient sentence with the resource and cache scope front-loaded and no filler. It is perhaps too terse for the amount of behavioral context this tool needs, but nothing is wasted.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description should do more: it never describes what is returned (a component/node object?) or the not-found behavior. The cache-scope note is valuable but leaves key agent-facing details unstated.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already defines 'name'. The description adds no lookup syntax, matching rules, or case-sensitivity detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline of 3 appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (Figma component) and adds the scoping qualifier 'by name from cached data'. It is clearly distinguishable in intent, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like get_figma_component or get_cached_components.

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 gives no indication of when to prefer this tool over get_figma_component, get_cached_components, or get_figma_file. The 'from cached data' phrase hints at a caching tradeoff but never spells out the condition that selects this tool.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that tokens are pre-resolved to $--var references (no caller re-matching of RGBA), that lean omits ~15KB of duplicated blocks, and that prune defaults to a deterministic pass. It stops short of auth, rate limits, or error behavior, so not a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then workflow and field semantics. Dense but every sentence carries information relevant to correct invocation; slightly long, but appropriate for a 9-parameter tool with non-obvious sequencing.

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 9-parameter tool with no output schema, the description documents the return shape (cssVars, tailwindTheme, registry, sections[], IR tree) and the workflow well enough to call correctly. It omits failure modes and access requirements, which keeps it just below complete.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real value beyond the schema by explaining parameter interaction and intent — summary-then-lean-per-section ordering, format:flat for machine-readable per-section fetches, and maxDepth as an alternative to manual decomposition. This is more than the schema's per-parameter docs provide.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Get a Figma node by URL') and precisely characterizes the output (pruned, tokenized, componentized IR with :root vars, Tailwind theme, registry). It also distinguishes itself from get_figma_file by positioning the summary mode as a replacement for manual decomposition.

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?

Gives explicit sequencing: use summary:true FIRST for large sections, then fetch individual sections with lean/format:flat/maxDepth. Names the alternative workflow (get_figma_file decomposition) and the condition that makes it unnecessary.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no indication of whether results are cached, how large the payload may be, whether the file must be authenticated, or what 'transform it for development' actually does to the data. 'Get' implies a read, but nothing beyond that is stated.

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 tight sentence with the resource and key scoping parameter front-loaded. No waste, though the trailing 'transform it for development' is vague enough to be near-filler rather than information.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description must convey behavior and return shape, and it does not. The undefined 'transform it for development' leaves the agent unable to predict what it will receive or how expensive the call is.

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% and the schema already explains that fileId is extracted from the Figma URL. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond 'by file ID', so the baseline 3 for high-coverage single-parameter schemas applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (get Figma file data) scoped by file ID, and hints at a transformation step. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_figma_component or export_svg, but never explicitly contrasts itself with them, so it stops short of a 5.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the alternative sibling tools (get_figma_component, get_cached_components) that an agent might pick instead. The agent must infer that this is the entry point for whole-file retrieval.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only listing but says nothing about return shape, cache scope, pagination, or the relationship to the export/render siblings, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately terse for a zero-parameter list operation, though it is arguably too sparse to route the agent confidently.

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 no-param, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description should at least hint at what a cached SVG export entry represents and how the list relates to export_svg. As written it is minimally viable but leaves return-content questions open, especially since no output schema exists to compensate.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no syntax for the description to document. The baseline for a parameterless tool applies; the description simply cannot add parameter detail.

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 a clear verb ('List') and resource ('cached SVG exports'), so the agent immediately knows what the tool returns. However, it does not distinguish this from siblings like get_cached_components or export_svg, which also touch cached SVG resources.

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 on when to use this tool versus export_svg, get_cached_components, or migrate_all_svgs. The agent is left to infer that this purely enumerates the cache without exporting or fetching individual components.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose that this is a bulk filesystem-writing operation (outputDir), whether it overwrites existing files, whether it requires Figma auth, how it behaves on large files or failures, or what it returns. 'Automatically' hints at the traversal behavior but nothing about side effects or limits.

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 tight sentence with no filler, and the bulk scope is front-loaded. It is arguably under-specified rather than verbose, but as structure goes it is clean.

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 no-annotation, file-writing, bulk export tool with no output schema, the description is thin: it omits where results go, what is returned, and error/partial-failure behavior. The schema supplies the parameter details, but the behavioral gap remains for an operation of this kind.

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%, with both fileId and outputDir (including its default) fully documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description's 'all SVG icons from a Figma file' adds slight scoping context for fileId but no format or syntax detail beyond 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 a specific verb (find and export) and resource (all SVG icons from a Figma file), and the word 'all' correctly distinguishes it from a single-item operation. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling export_svg, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone why it should pick this bulk tool over that one.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no sibling tool (notably export_svg) is named as an alternative. The word 'Automatically' and 'all' imply a bulk workflow, but the agent is left to infer that from the adjective rather than being told.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the return format (base64-encoded image data), which is genuinely useful since there is no output schema. However, it says nothing about authentication requirements, whether figmaUrl or fileId+nodeId is preferred, size or scale limits, or error behavior on an invalid node.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and resource lead. It is efficient, though it leans toward under-specification rather than waste given the tool's practical gotchas.

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 4-parameter tool with zero required params and no output schema, the description covers the essentials (what is exported, output format) but omits a critical practical point: that the agent must supply either figmaUrl or fileId+nodeId for the call to work. Addressing that redundancy would round out an otherwise adequate definition.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters (scale, fileId, nodeId, figmaUrl) including the colon node format and the alternative-to-figmaUrl relationship. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb+resource+output: 'Export a specific Figma node as PNG and return base64-encoded image data.' An agent immediately knows this produces a raster image of one node. It does not name or distinguish itself from the close sibling export_svg, which is the one tool it could be confused with.

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 when-to-use guidance, no conditions, and no mention of alternatives. Given sibling export_svg handles vector export and verify_render/list_svg_cache exist nearby, the agent must infer when raster PNG is preferable. Nothing tells it when not to use this tool.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so richly: it declares the operation is read-only/measurement-only ('never changes code'), discloses the runtime environment (headless Chromium inside the server, not the user's Chrome), and states setup prerequisites (`npm install` + `npx playwright install chromium`). It also describes what the output contains.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and the MEASUREMENT ONLY qualifier, then return values, usage, and dependencies. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the single long paragraph packs many clauses and could be split for readability.

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 10-param tool with no output schema, the description fills the gaps: it explains the return values (SSIM, pixel-diff %, clustered diff regions in logical px), the input-source options, and the environment/setup requirements. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly appears missing.

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 the schema already documents all 10 parameters in depth. The description reinforces the reference-source choice (figmaUrl auto-fetched vs the two alternatives) but adds little semantic detail beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (render and compare) and resource (HTML file vs Figma design PNG), and explicitly scopes it as 'MEASUREMENT ONLY'. It also disambiguates from environmental expectations by noting it 'does NOT use the user's Chrome' and runs inside the server, so an agent can distinguish it from sibling render/export tools.

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?

Gives clear when-to-use guidance ('Use after generating HTML to objectively check fidelity, then fix only the reported regions') and enumerates the three ways to supply the reference image (figmaUrl, figmaPngPath, figmaPngBase64). It lacks an explicit when-not/alternative-tool statement against siblings, but the context is unambiguous.

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