Conduit

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

Annotations provide rich behavioral details (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint, edgeCaseWarnings), so the description's burden is lower. It adds value by specifying the return format ('content: Array of objects...') and clarifying that it scans 'all descendant text nodes', which isn't covered by annotations, enhancing transparency without contradiction.

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 action and resource, followed by a clear return format. Both sentences are essential and waste-free, making it highly efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 annotations cover safety, idempotency, and edge cases, and the schema fully documents the single parameter, the description is reasonably complete. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from more detail on return values, but the provided return format is adequate for a read-only tool.

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 the parameter 'nodeId' fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any extra meaning or details about the parameter beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline score without compensating or detracting.

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 resource ('all text nodes in the selected Figma node'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_styled_text_segments' or 'get_text_style', which might offer similar text-related functionality, so it doesn't reach a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools or contexts where this scan is preferred over other text-related operations, leaving the agent without explicit usage instructions.

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