Inspect a Figma file

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description aligns with these by stating 'read-only snapshot' and 'creates or reuses'. It adds context like 'versioned normalized' and 'compact summary', which are useful. However, it does not disclose behaviors beyond what annotations cover, such as what 'refresh' does or how the snapshot is managed. Given the annotations cover safety and idempotency, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 sentence that front-loads the primary action ('creates or reuses') and result ('returns a compact summary'). It has zero waste and packs essential information efficiently. This is an example of concise, structured writing.

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?

Given the tool has five parameters (including a nested scope object) and no required parameters, the description is inadequate. It does not explain when to use the tool, how the parameters relate to the snapshot creation, or what the 'compact summary' contains. While an output schema exists, the description does not reference it or clarify the input structure. The overall context is incomplete for an agent to use this tool 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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining the parameters. It does not mention any parameter names, types, or purposes. The only hint is that a snapshot is involved, implying parameters like file_key or figma_url locate the file, but this is not explicit. With five parameters including a nested object, the description is far from sufficient.

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 tool's function: it creates or reuses a versioned normalized read-only snapshot and returns a compact summary. This is specific about the verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like analyze_figma_layout or query_nodes, which could also inspect Figma files. Thus it falls short of the top score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions for choosing it over siblings like query_nodes or analyze_figma_layout, nor does it exclude any scenarios. The agent is left to infer usage from the name and title alone, which is insufficient.

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