get_grid

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Read' (non-destructive) but fails to mention error handling, permissions, or what happens if the node is not a frame. This leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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, short sentence that front-loads the action ('Read layout grids from a frame node in Figma'). Every word is meaningful with no unnecessary fluff.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate but lacks details about return format or behavior when the node has no grids. It covers the core functionality.

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% (the only parameter 'nodeId' is described in schema). The description adds no additional meaning beyond 'The ID of the frame node to read grids from', so baseline 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 'Read layout grids from a frame node in Figma' uses a specific verb ('Read') and identifies the resource ('layout grids'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'set_grid' (write) and 'get_guide' (guides vs grids).

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 implies usage for reading grids from a frame node but provides no explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives or prerequisites (e.g., node must be a frame). The purpose is clear enough for the agent to infer basic usage.

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