get_screen_interactions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'No AI inference' is a genuinely useful disclosure that results are raw extraction rather than interpreted, but it omits read-only status (implied by 'get'), auth requirements, error behavior, or any pagination/limits.

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, front-loaded with what is returned and immediately qualified by the no-inference clause. No wasted words.

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 two-param read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description enumerates the returned content (triggers, actions, conditions, resolved destinations) and clarifies fidelity, which is close to sufficient. Missing safety/auth notes keep it from a 5.

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 description coverage is 100% for both required params (fileKey accepts file key or URL, screenNodeId format given), so the schema already does this work. The description adds nothing about the parameters, which is acceptable at full coverage — baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb (get) and resource (triggers, actions, conditions, resolved destinations for one Figma screen). The scope 'one screen' hints at the narrower grain versus the sibling get_prototype_flows/graph, but it never names or contrasts them explicitly.

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 statement of when to pick this over get_prototype_flows or get_prototype_graph, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The only guidance-ish signal is 'No AI inference', which describes output fidelity rather than selection context.

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