get_assets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'Get image URLs' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, error behavior, or what happens when a node is not found. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the literal action.

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, focused sentence with no redundant information. It front-loads the action and resource, making it easy to scan. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimal but covers the core purpose. However, it does not describe the return format or any edge cases (e.g., missing nodeId, invalid URL). The parameter schema fills in some gaps, but the description alone is not fully complete for a tool with 4 parameters and potential format/scale nuances.

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 coverage is 100% with each parameter having a description (e.g., 'scale (default: 1)', 'format (enum: jpg/png/svg/pdf)'). The description itself adds no parameter semantics, but per the baseline rule, since schema coverage is high, a score of 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Get image URLs for nodes in a Figma file.' It uses a specific verb ('get'), a clear resource ('image URLs for nodes'), and the context ('Figma file') which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_node_details or extract_styles.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. The description implies it is for obtaining image URLs, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance or mention of alternatives. With eight related tools available, this lack of differentiation could lead to incorrect tool selection.

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