figma_get_screenshot

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose that the operation is a GET render and that returned URLs are temporary, which is useful. However, it omits other behavioral details such as error cases, URL expiration timeline, or that node rendering may fail for unsupported node types.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool, and the endpoint reference adds precision without bloat.

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?

For a tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is somewhat thin. It states the core behavior and temp-URL output, but does not describe the returned URL mapping, the relationship between url and fileKey/nodeIds, or any usage prerequisites. The agent must rely on the schema and API familiarity to invoke it correctly.

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 60%, and the description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. nodeIds, fileKey, and url are already described in the schema, while scale and format rely on their names, enums, and numeric bounds. The description is adequate but does not meaningfully compensate for the undocumented scale/format semantics.

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 clearly states the action ('Renders nodes as images'), the resource (GET /v1/images/:key), and the output (temporary URLs). This is specific enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like figma_get_file or figma_get_metadata.

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 gives clear context: this tool is for turning Figma nodes into rendered image URLs. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the rendering purpose is unambiguous and easily matched to an agent's need for screenshots.

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