figma_get_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 beyond the bare read action. It does not explain the sessionId/connectionGeneration handshake in `scope`, whether missing fields error or are omitted, batching limits on nodeIds, or any permission requirement. Only the implicit read-only nature is conveyed.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no filler, so nothing is wasteful. But the brevity is under-specification rather than efficiency – the sentence is front-loaded with the verb yet omits the context the agent needs.

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 explained, but the tool has three required parameters, a nested scope object, and zero annotations. Against that complexity a one-line description is far from sufficient, leaving the agent to guess at the session/scope contract and the effect of field selection.

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%, and the description accounts for only one of the three parameters (nodeId → nodeIds). It adds nothing about `fields` (a 48-value enum where selection has real cost/behavior implications) or about the nested `scope` object, whose sessionId and connectionGeneration are entirely opaque.

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 names a verb and a resource ("Чтение запрошенных свойств по nodeId" – reading requested properties by nodeId), so the basic operation is identifiable. However, it never says these are Figma document nodes or that it is a property-read companion to tree/context tools, so it does not distinguish itself from siblings like figma_get_tree, figma_get_context, or figma_find_nodes.

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 exclusion criteria, and no mention of alternatives among the nine sibling tools. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is for fetching selected fields of known node IDs rather than discovering nodes.

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