figma_get_code_connect

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, consistent with 'get' operation. Description adds beyond annotations: notes that only plugin-accessible hints are returned, not the full source map. Discloses limitation clearly. No 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?

Two concise sentences plus a short note. Front-loads key information: what it returns and alternatives. Every sentence adds value. No redundancy.

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 no output schema, description sufficiently covers return fields (documentationLinks, componentKey, name, description). Explains both usage modes (nodeIds vs scanCurrentPage). With 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is complete and leaves no ambiguity.

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 coverage is 100% with explicit descriptions, but description adds value: explains scanCurrentPage scans for COMPONENT/COMPONENT_SET/INSTANCE nodes and mentions maxNodes default (40) and cap (120). Does not explain figmaUrl/fileKey beyond schema, but these are straightforward. Adds meaningful context.

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?

Description clearly states the tool returns Code Connect hints for components/instances, listing specific fields. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like figma_get_component and mentions alternative sources (figma.config/CLI, official MCP). Verb+resource+scope is specific.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool (get hints) and what it does not cover (full source map). Provides alternative: 'Use Figma's official MCP get_code_connect_map for native repo paths.' Clear guidance on when-not-to-use.

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