figma_get_assets

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

The description frames the tool as a pure listing operation of already-downloaded local resources, while the annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, implying state change and external access. No behavioral context is added to reconcile this (does it fetch/refresh from Figma, write to disk, hit the network?), so the description actively points away from the declared safety profile.

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, so it is concise by construction. However the brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than economy, and no structure exists for parameters or scope.

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?

A six-parameter, open-world, non-read-only tool with 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and no explanation of return values or pagination. The one-sentence description leaves an agent without enough information 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?

Six parameters (url, limit, nodeId, offset, fileKey, snapshotId) have zero schema description coverage, and the description mentions none of them. Nothing explains how fileKey, nodeId, snapshotId, or url combine to scope the listing, nor how limit/offset paginate.

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?

"List downloaded local resources with provenance" gives a verb (list) and a resource (local resources), but the resource is described generically and the Figma context that the tool name implies is never stated. Against siblings such as download_assets, figma_export_assets, figma_list_snapshots and get_design_context, an agent cannot tell what makes this listing distinct or what 'provenance' means in the response.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite or exclusion, and no reference to any of the many sibling tools that also deal with assets or snapshots. The agent must guess whether this is the discovery step before download_assets/figma_export_assets or an unrelated local cache inspection.

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