get_node_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose concrete behavior: VECTOR children are omitted by default, maxDepth defaults to 0, text is truncated, and verbose swaps the compact summary for the raw REST dump. It does not state read-only safety or error conditions, but the default-suppression and truncation behaviors are genuinely useful disclosures beyond structured data.

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 return contract is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by the two important default overrides and the verbose alternative. Dense but every clause carries information; no filler sentences.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must describe the return shape, which it does via the field list and the verbose escape hatch. It omits failure modes (e.g., invalid nodeId) and auth requirements, but is largely sufficient for an agent to call it 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 coverage is 80%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: fields replaces the compact default rather than appending, excludeTypes changes the default VECTOR-skipping when passed [], and maxDepth confirms the 0 default meaning 'the node itself'. It slightly exceeds the schema-provided definitions.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Compact layout-aware summary of a node') and enumerates exactly what the summary contains: size, auto-layout properties, fill, text, childCount. It is clearly distinguishable in purpose from mutators, though it never names the plural sibling get_nodes_info which would remove remaining ambiguity.

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?

Usage is implied through parameter semantics (defaults for maxDepth and excludeTypes, fields vs verbose), which guide invocation, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or pointer to an alternative such as get_nodes_info or get_figma_data. The agent must infer which of the closely-named read tools applies.

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