Conduit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the return type (array of constraint info) but lacks details on permissions needed, error handling, rate limits, or whether it's a safe read operation. The description doesn't contradict annotations (none exist), but it's insufficient for a mutation-free tool with no annotation coverage.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence adds return value info efficiently. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for parameters).

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 full schema coverage but no output schema, the description covers basic purpose and return format. However, it lacks behavioral context (e.g., safety, errors) and usage guidance relative to siblings, making it minimally adequate but with clear gaps.

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 fully documents all three parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema (e.g., no clarification on mutual exclusivity of nodeId vs nodeIds). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Get constraints') and resource ('Figma nodes'), specifying optional inclusion of children. It distinguishes from siblings like 'set_constraint' (write vs read) but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other read tools like 'get_node_info' or 'get_annotation'.

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 'get_node_info' (which might include constraint data) or 'get_annotation' (which might overlap). The description mentions optional child inclusion but doesn't provide context for choosing between single vs batch node IDs or when to include children.

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