getFigmaFrame

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior, but it only mentions requirements. It does not explain the return format (e.g., base64 PNG data, URL), failure modes, or side effects. The statement about token requirement is also ambiguous given the schema marks it optional.

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?

Single, brief sentence states purpose and requirements without waste. Very economical and easy to parse.

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 tool without output schema and annotations, the description omits essential return value information and usage context. It is not complete enough for an agent to understand what the tool returns or when to prefer it over other Figma tools.

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%, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds little beyond the schema, except noting the requirement for token and IDs, which may conflict with the optional figmaToken parameter. It does not provide additional semantic detail for scale or format.

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 exports a Figma frame as PNG, using a specific verb and resource. However, it mentions PNG only while the schema supports jpg and svg, slightly narrowing the actual functionality. It distinguishes from sibling tools like getFigmaSpecs.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative Figma tools like getFigmaSpecs or listFrames. The only context is the requirement for an API token and file/node IDs, which is more of a prerequisite than a usage guideline.

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