get_screenshot

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and largely does so: it discloses the return payload (local URL, file path, width/height, original_width/original_height) and the resolution-capping behavior (maxDimension, up to 2x node size). It does not explicitly state side effects, permissions, or whether the file key is ignored beyond the schema note, but the payload disclosure is genuinely useful context.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, then resolution semantics, then return shape. No filler or restatement of the name; every sentence carries new information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly takes on the return-shape explanation, and a 5-param tool with full schema coverage is otherwise well served. The one gap is that contentsOnly is never explained in prose, leaving its practical effect to the schema alone.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: maxDimension "caps the longer edge," clarified as up to 2x node size, and enableBase64Response is framed as getting the image inline. It omits contentsOnly and fileKey behavior, which the schema covers instead.

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 and resource ("Generate a screenshot") plus the target scope ("a given node or the currently selected node in Figma"). This distinguishes it from data-oriented siblings like get_metadata or get_design_context, but it never names an alternative, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied: "Omit it to use the current selection in Figma" tells the agent what happens without a nodeId, and "Set enableBase64Response to also get the image inline" hints at a workflow preference. There is no when-to-use-this-vs-download_assets or get_design_context guidance and no exclusions.

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