get_nodes_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying that output preserves input order and missing ids yield null, which is not present in the schema or annotations.

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 concise at two sentences, with the primary action front-loaded. Every word adds value, and there is no redundant filler or repetition of schema information.

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 simplicity (one parameter, clear annotations), the description is complete. It covers input behavior (multiple ids), output behavior (order preservation, null slots), and the read-only nature is already annotated, making this a fully self-contained description.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage for the sole parameter nodeIds, with a clear description 'Figma node ids to fetch'. The tool description adds no additional semantic detail about parameter formatting, but the schema fully documents it, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool returns multiple Figma nodes by id, distinguishing it from the singular get_node tool. It also specifies behavioral details about output ordering and null handling, which further clarifies its purpose.

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 implies usage for batch node retrieval via 'multiple nodes by id', but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_node or mention when not to use this tool. Sibling tool names are given but not referenced in the description itself, so usage guidance is only implied.

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