Conduit

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

Annotations already provide rich behavioral hints (readOnlyHint: true, idempotentHint: true, destructiveHint: false, edgeCaseWarnings). The description adds value by specifying the return format ('Array of objects... with the node(s) info as JSON'), which is not covered in annotations. It does not contradict annotations, as 'Get' aligns with readOnlyHint, and it provides useful context on output structure beyond the safety profile.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently structured into two sentences: one for the action and one for the return format. It avoids redundancy with annotations and schema, though it could be slightly more concise by integrating return details with the action statement, but overall it is well-sized and wastes no words.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (read-only, multiple parameters, no output schema), the description and annotations together provide a complete picture: purpose, usage, behavioral traits (safe, idempotent), parameter details, and edge cases. The description covers the return format, compensating for the lack of output schema, but could slightly enhance completeness by mentioning performance implications or error handling more explicitly.

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%, with detailed descriptions for 'nodeId' and 'nodeIds' parameters (e.g., format requirements, array constraints). The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the relationship between 'nodeId' and 'nodeIds' or usage examples. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema fully documents parameters.

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 detailed information') and resource ('one or more nodes in Figma'), with specific distinction from siblings like 'delete_node', 'move_node', or 'set_node' which modify nodes rather than retrieve information. The annotations reinforce this with 'Unified version of get_node_info and get_nodes_info' and 'inspect properties and metadata', making the purpose explicit and differentiated.

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 and annotations provide clear context for when to use this tool: to inspect node properties and metadata, as opposed to modifying nodes (e.g., 'set_node', 'delete_node') or retrieving other data (e.g., 'get_document_info', 'get_components'). However, it lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives for specific scenarios, such as when to use 'get_node_info' vs. 'get_selection' or 'get_page', which slightly limits guidance.

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