get_nodes_info

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

No annotations provided, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It only states 'detailed information' without clarifying what that entails, read-only nature, limits on node count, or response structure. Bare minimum is not met.

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?

Single sentence of 9 words with clear structure and front-loaded verb. However, extreme brevity comes at the cost of completeness, but still scores well for conciseness.

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 no output schema or annotations, the description should provide more context: what 'detailed information' includes, error handling, maximum nodes, or return format. The current description is insufficient for effective tool use.

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 the nodeIds parameter described as 'Array of node IDs to get information about'. The description adds no further semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 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?

Description clearly states 'Get detailed information about multiple nodes in Figma', specifying verb (Get), resource (nodes), and distinguishing plurality (multiple vs. single node in sibling get_node_info).

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?

Description implies use for multiple nodes via the word 'multiple', but lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this over get_node_info (singular) or other sibling tools, and no when-not-to-use conditions.

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