figma_get_images

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits like authentication requirements (implied by personal_access_token but not stated), rate limits, side effects, or the nature of the response (URL vs binary). It fails to indicate whether the operation is read-only or has any destructive potential.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential purpose without any fluff. Every word contributes value.

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 5 parameters (3 required) and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the return format, error handling, pagination, or any constraints like rate limits. The complexity of the tool warrants more context.

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?

The input schema has 60% description coverage, with descriptions for node_ids, format, and scale. The tool description does not add any additional parameter-level information beyond what is in the schema. The missing descriptions for personal_access_token and file_key are not compensated by the description.

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 (export/render), the resource (Figma nodes), and the output formats (PNG, JPG, SVG, or PDF). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like figma_get_comments or figma_get_node, which focus on different aspects.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. For example, it does not clarify that this tool is for rendering nodes, while other Figma tools are for retrieving metadata.

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