fetch_figma_node

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a meaningful trait: it calls the external Figma API and normalizes the result into compiler input, and it returns Auto Layout info. It does not mention auth requirements, error handling, or rate limits, so coverage is partial rather than complete.

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 short sentences with the core action front-loaded and the return content stated second; no filler. Marginal room to be tighter but effectively sized.

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 fetch tool with no output schema, the description does convey what comes back (structured node data with Auto Layout), which is the most important missing piece. It omits auth/env behavior and the file_meta branch effects, leaving it adequate but incomplete.

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 the enum (node/file_meta), figmaUrl, and optional figmaToken are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond 'design node' loosely implying the node action, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb (fetch) plus resource (design node) plus a transformation step (normalize into compiler input format), so the agent knows this is a read-and-convert operation. It does not, however, differentiate itself from likely-related siblings like compile_figma_component or scan_components.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and names no alternatives despite several plausibly adjacent siblings (compile_figma_component, scan_components). Context is only inferable from the name.

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