scan_text_nodes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It fails to state whether the operation is read-only, what it returns, or any side effects. 'Scan' implies a non-destructive read, but this is not explicit, and the return format is unspecified.

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, clear sentence with no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the verb and subject, making the core purpose immediately visible.

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?

With no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., list of text node IDs or text contents). It also causes ambiguity by saying 'selected Figma node' when the tool requires a nodeId parameter, and it does not clarify recursion depth or search scope.

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% for the single parameter nodeId, and the schema description 'ID of the node to scan' fully explains it. The tool description adds no extra meaning, so the baseline score 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 states the verb 'scan' and the target resource 'all text nodes in the selected Figma node', giving a clear purpose. It is specific enough to distinguish from general scanning tools like scan_nodes_by_types, although it does not explicitly name alternatives. The term 'scan' is slightly vague but the intent is discernible.

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 explicit usage guidelines are given; there is no mention of when to use this tool versus scan_nodes_by_types or other siblings. Usage is implied by the name and description (i.e., when you need text nodes), but alternatives and exclusions are not stated.

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