Get a screenshot (Figma compatible)

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, and the description does not contradict them. It adds that the result is PNG and follows the Figma MCP shape, but it omits return encoding, scaling effects, and size-limit behavior, so the added behavioral context is modest.

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?

A single compact sentence front-loads the output type and scope, then maps two key parameters. There is little waste, and the structure makes the main modes easy to scan.

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 five-parameter tool with no parameter descriptions and no output schema, the definition is under-specified: three parameters and the exact return payload are unexplained. Annotations reduce safety concerns, but the description is not complete enough to guarantee correct invocation.

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 0% across five parameters, and the description explains only nodeId and window. The ids, scale, and maxSize parameters remain undocumented, leaving most invocation semantics to inference.

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 states the resource and output clearly: a PNG of a layer or the current page, with nodeId vs window mapping. It is distinguishable from a generic screenshot, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as screenshot and export.

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?

It gives in-tool selection guidance by mapping nodeId to one layer and window:true to the app window, so the two main capture modes are implied. It says nothing about when to prefer this over sibling screenshot/export tools, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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