getFigmaSpecs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only lists the data types extracted and does not mention authentication requirements (the figmaToken parameter is optional but not explained in context), network calls, return format, or potential side effects. This is minimal and leaves the agent guessing about the tool's operation.

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 a single sentence, tightly worded, and front-loads the purpose. Every word contributes, and the list of spec types adds useful detail without bloat. It is a model of conciseness.

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 extraction tool with fully documented schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, without an output schema, the agent is left to infer the return structure, and the absence of usage guidance or behavioral details (e.g., whether this replaces or complements sibling tools) leaves gaps. It is enough to understand the basic purpose but not fully complete for robust selection.

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 already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for each parameter (nodeId, fileKey, figmaToken). The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 uses a specific verb 'Extract' and clearly identifies the resource ('design specs from Figma') while enumerating the categories (colors, fonts, dimensions, spacing). This provides a clear sense of the tool's function, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from overlapping siblings like getFigmaStyles or getFigmaColorPalette, which might also extract similar data.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many Figma-related siblings (e.g., getFigmaStyles, getFigmaFrame, getFigmaColorPalette). The description simply states the action without indicating whether this is the comprehensive extractor or if specialized tools should be preferred for specific spec types.

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