Get Screenshot

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds real behavior beyond that: maxDimension caps the longer edge and can reach up to 2x the node size, and the return payload contains a local URL, file path, and both rendered and original dimensions. It still doesn't disclose failure modes (e.g. node not found, oversized requests), which keeps it out of the top band.

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 sentences, all front-loaded: what it does, the sizing control, the response shape, then the opt-in base64 flag. No sentence is redundant and no filler is present.

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 correctly compensates by enumerating the returned URL, file path, width/height, and original dimensions, and it notes that omitting nodeId falls back to the selection. It omits anything about the ignored fileKey or error behavior, but nothing essential to a correct call is missing.

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%, so the schema already documents all five parameters and the baseline is 3. The description adds one genuine detail not in the schema — that maxDimension may go up to 2x the node size — and explains what enableBase64Response produces, but otherwise restates the documented defaults.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ("Generate a screenshot") and scope (a given node or the current selection in Figma), which is clearly distinct from siblings like get_metadata or get_design_context. It stops short of naming an alternative tool, so an agent still has to infer which read tool to pick.

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 implied by "for a given node or the currently selected node," which tells the agent the two invocation modes. There is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-siblings guidance (e.g. versus download_assets or get_design_context), so routing remains inferred.

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