scan_text_nodes

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

The description lacks information about behavioral traits such as whether the tool modifies data, required permissions, or how it handles nested nodes. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and fails to disclose key behaviors.

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 with no wasted words, but it is too brief for the tool's complexity given the lack of annotations and output schema. It sacrifices completeness for brevity.

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 output schema, no annotations, and multiple similar siblings, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return value, behavior on empty selections, or how it differs from nearby tools like 'walk_and_scan_text'.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 100% (parameter 'nodeId' is described as 'ID of the node to scan'), the tool description adds value by clarifying that it scans 'all text nodes in the selected Figma node', which specifies the scope beyond just the node itself. This exceeds the baseline of 3.

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 ('Scan') and the resource ('all text nodes in the selected Figma node'), providing a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'walk_and_scan_text' or 'scan_nodes_by_types', which also scan text nodes.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'walk_and_scan_text' or 'scan_nodes_by_types'. There is no mention of when-not-to-use or context-specific advice.

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