figma_get_console_logs

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds that logs are from a buffer (not CDP) and have a default limit of 50. This clarifies the data source and default behavior beyond the annotation, though it does not mention whether the buffer is persistent or if calling this clears logs.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences front-loading the purpose and key details. No unnecessary words, and every sentence adds value.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter, no output schema, and readOnlyHint annotation, the description covers the main aspects: source, log types, non-CDP nature, and default limit. It does not discuss return format or empty buffer scenarios, but these are less critical for such a straightforward 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 coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions), so the description must compensate. It only repeats the default value ('Limit default 50') but does not explain the parameter's purpose (e.g., 'number of log entries to return'). The schema already provides min, max, and default, so the added value is minimal.

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 action: 'Get plugin console logs (log/warn/error) from the F-MCP plugin buffer.' It specifies the source (buffer) and log types, and mentions 'No CDP' distinguishing it from alternative approaches. Sibling tools include figma_watch_console (streaming) and figma_clear_console (clearing), making this tool's one-time fetch purpose unambiguous.

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 context with 'No CDP' and 'Limit default 50,' hinting at when to use (simple fetch vs. more complex CDP-based logging). However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or direct comparison with siblings like figma_watch_console, which would improve guidance.

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