scan_text_nodes

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 only says 'scan' without disclosing whether this is read-only, whether it recurses through all descendants, or what the output shape is. This lack of behavioral detail is a significant gap.

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 description is a single compact sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified; it does not explain recursive scope or return value, so it is concise but not fully informative.

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, no output schema, and only one parameter, the description should explain what 'scan' produces and its scope. It fails to mention whether it returns text contents or merely node references, making it incomplete for an agent to predict tool behavior.

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 input schema covers 100% of the single parameter 'nodeId' with description 'ID of the node to scan'. The tool description's 'selected Figma node' loosely maps to nodeId but adds no new semantic 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 clearly states the action ('scan') and the resource ('all text nodes') with a scope ('in the selected Figma node'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tool 'scan_nodes_by_types' or describe what 'scan' returns, so it stops short of a perfect 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'scan_nodes_by_types' or 'get_node_info'. No mention of intended use cases or exclusion scenarios.

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