figma_inspect_design

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for disclosure. 'Inspect' implies a read-only operation, but it never explicitly states that there are no side effects, nor does it mention any behavioral traits like error conditions or data sensitivity. The lack of detail on what 'compact task-oriented view' means adds to the opacity.

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, concise sentence with no fluff. However, it's under-specified; while concise, it sacrifices clarity by using the vague phrase 'compact task-oriented view', slightly diminishing its usefulness.

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?

Despite the output schema and rich input schema, the description is too brief to guide an agent on what the various views (summary, full, tree, nodes, assets, etc.) offer or when to use which. The tool has 7 parameters and 8 view options, but the description provides no high-level context about the inspection workflow or how it relates to packet preparation.

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?

The input schema provides 100% parameter coverage, including descriptions for each property. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, but this is acceptable given the schema's thoroughness. 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 uses the specific verb 'Inspect' and a clear resource ('Figma Packet'), which distinguishes it from siblings like figma_generate_unity_prefab. However, 'compact task-oriented view' is vague and doesn't specify what inspection entails beyond a general overview.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The phrase 'normal or diagnostic' hints at context but doesn't tell the agent when to choose this over figma_prepare_design or other siblings.

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