find_nodes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses in-engine evaluation, that all predicates are optional and ANDed, the columnar return shape (fields/rows plus scanned/total/truncated counts), and implicit type constraints. It does not cover permissions, error behavior, or performance limits, so it falls just short of complete.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and the anti-pattern it replaces, followed by predicate semantics and then worked examples. Efficient, though the example block is dense; every element still earns its place by illustrating the predicate system.

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 22-parameter, no-required, annotation-less query tool, the description supplies the execution model, combination semantics, and return format (including truncation counts) that no other field provides. A reader has enough to call it correctly; only edge-case/error behavior is absent.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: it explains AND-combination semantics and shows how individual predicates (mainComponentName, fillHex, missingFillStyle, hasOverrides) compose into queries, including the design-system-drift use case.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (query the document for nodes matching predicates) and its execution model (evaluated inside Figma so only matching rows return). It also distinguishes itself from the read-subtree-and-filter approach used by siblings like get_document_tree, so the agent can tell them apart.

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?

Explicitly says 'use this instead of reading a whole subtree and filtering,' naming the alternative pattern being replaced. Three concrete examples map conditions (red button instances, hardcoded fills/design-system drift, overridden instances) to predicate combinations, leaving no ambiguity about when to reach for it.

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