figma_get_node

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so safety is covered elsewhere. The description adds nothing about authentication requirements (the personal_access_token parameter is unexplained), whether the returned node includes children recursively, or rate/scope limits of the Figma API.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient but underspecified rather than genuinely concise — nothing is wasted, but not much is delivered either.

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 no output schema and a third of parameters undocumented, the description carries the remaining explanatory burden and does not discharge it. An agent cannot tell from this what shape the node payload takes, whether children are included, or how auth is supplied.

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 33% — only node_id is documented in the schema. The description does not explain file_key (expects a Figma file key from a URL) or the role of personal_access_token, so two of three parameters remain opaque in both places.

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 ('Get') plus resource ('a specific node by ID') and scope ('within a Figma file'). An agent can distinguish it from figma_get_file and figma_get_images by the word 'node', but the description never names those siblings or contrasts the use case explicitly.

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 on when to reach for this rather than figma_get_file, figma_get_images, or figma_get_components. The only implied usage is 'you already have a node ID', which is restated by the required parameter list, not the description.

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