Conduit

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

Annotations already provide excellent coverage (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint, edgeCaseWarnings). The description adds value by specifying the return format structure for both single and batch operations, which isn't covered in annotations. It doesn't contradict annotations (which correctly mark it as read-only and non-destructive). The description complements rather than repeats annotation information.

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 perfectly structured and concise. The first sentence states the core purpose. The next two lines efficiently document return formats for both operation modes. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words. The information is front-loaded with the most important purpose statement first.

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 read-only tool with comprehensive annotations and full schema coverage, the description provides adequate context. It explains what the tool returns, which is crucial since there's no output schema. The main gap is lack of explicit guidance on when to use this versus other node information retrieval tools. Given the rich annotations, the description is reasonably complete for agent understanding.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already fully documents both parameters (nodeId for single, nodeIds for batch). The description mentions 'one or more Figma nodes' which aligns with the parameters but doesn't add meaningful semantic information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work.

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 tool's purpose with specific verb ('Get') and resource ('annotation(s) for one or more Figma nodes'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'set_annotation' (write operation) and other 'get_' tools that retrieve different node properties. The description explicitly mentions both single and batch operations.

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 implies usage context through the return format descriptions (single vs batch), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, dependencies, or compare with other 'get_' tools like 'get_node_info' or 'get_node_style' that might provide overlapping functionality. The guidance is functional but not strategic.

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