figma_find_nodes

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about pagination (a cursor parameter exists), result limits, session/connection-generation validity, or whether the search is read-only. 'Поиск' weakly implies a non-destructive read, which is the only behavioral signal present.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and wastes no words, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness. There is no structure to speak of, though nothing is redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but a 7-parameter, nested-object search tool with no annotations and no parameter documentation needs far more than one sentence. The required session/connectionGeneration scope and the cursor/limit pairing are critical to correct invocation and go unaddressed.

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% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It only gestures at 'scope'/'область' while name, limit, types, cursor, rootId and document (a const boolean) are left entirely unexplained in both schema and prose.

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 Russian sentence gives a verb+resource ('Поиск узлов' = search for nodes) and restricts it to an explicitly given area of the current document, so the basic purpose is inferable. However, it never distinguishes this from close siblings such as figma_get_nodes, figma_get_tree or figma_get_context, which all retrieve node-like data, leaving the agent unable to pick correctly from name and text alone.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of the sibling alternatives. The phrase 'явно заданной области' hints that a scope/root must be pre-selected, but the description does not say when a scoped find is preferable to figma_get_nodes or figma_get_tree.

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