figma_get_images

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it does not mention that a personal access token is required, whether the operation is read-only, what happens with invalid node IDs, or whether the result is a URL vs binary data. It only restates the output formats that are already visible in the schema enum.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and contains no filler. It is appropriately sized for a short definition, though the space saved is not reinvested in critical operational details.

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?

With five parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and an authentication parameter present, the definition is too thin. It omits token requirements, return shape, and error behavior, leaving the agent underprepared to invoke 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 description coverage is 60%, with file_key, node_ids, and personal_access_token undocumented. The description only echoes the format enum already present in the schema and adds no meaning about node ID syntax, token requirements, or scale applicability beyond what the schema states.

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 ('Export/render Figma nodes as images') and lists supported output formats, so the agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as figma_get_node or figma_get_file, which is the only gap at this level.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this export tool versus figma_get_node, figma_get_file, or the comment/component tools. The agent must infer that this is for image rendering, but no conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives are named.

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