figma_get_design_context

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose that the result is composed via REST and is not the official MCP codegen, which alerts agents to potentially different behavior. It does not address authentication, side effects, or failure modes, but 'get' implies a read operation and the output shape is stated.

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, with the main output content front-loaded and no filler. Every sentence adds information about the tool's nature.

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 and no annotations, the description should do more to explain invocation: which parameter is needed first, how nodeIds changes the result, and how the returned 'context' is structured. The broad output categories are present, but the agent is left without practical guidance for actually composing a useful request.

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% and the schema already documents url, fileKey, nodeIds, includeVariables, and includeScreenshot. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 identifies the deliverable as implementation context (layout, tokens, components, screenshot URL), which is a clear resource distinct from sibling Figma tools like figma_get_file or figma_get_screenshot. However, it lacks an explicit action verb such as 'retrieves' or 'generates', and the 'composed via REST' phrasing leans on implementation detail.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus figma_get_file, figma_get_metadata, figma_get_screenshot, or figma_get_variable_defs. The only disqualifier, 'Not the official MCP proprietary codegen', is an implementation caveat, not usage direction. The intended usage is only implied by the tool name.

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