figma_get_design_context

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, readOnlyHint=false), so the description's job is to add context — yet it adds none: no explanation of why a 'Get' tool is not read-only (network fetch, caching, snapshot creation), no note on auth requirements, depth/limit truncation, or node resolution behavior. There is a mild tension between the read-only framing of "Get" and readOnlyHint=false, though it stops short of an outright contradiction.

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 or repetition. It is efficient, though the brevity is partly a symptom of under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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?

For a tool with 7 parameters, a nested configuration object, no output schema, and open-world behavior, one sentence is far from sufficient. An agent cannot know how to disambiguate url vs fileKey+nodeId vs snapshotId, what depth/limit do, or what the returned layout/style context looks like.

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 0% across 7 parameters including a nested implementation object with six sub-fields (skills, platform, systemUi, framework, components, componentLibrary), so the description carries the full explanatory burden. It adds essentially nothing beyond hinting at url/snapshotId: depth, limit, nodeId, fileKey, and every implementation option — particularly how components/componentLibrary interact — remain undefined anywhere.

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?

"Get layout and style context" names a specific verb and resource, and the phrase "from a local snapshot or Figma URL" identifies the two source modes. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from the near-identically named sibling get_design_context or from get_metadata / figma_get_variables, so an agent cannot confidently pick it out of the list without opening the schema.

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 mention of "a local snapshot or Figma URL" is the only usage signal, and it is implicit rather than stated as a rule (e.g. 'pass url for a live file, snapshotId for an imported snapshot'). There is no guidance on when to prefer this over get_design_context, figma_get_variables, get_metadata, or get_screenshot, despite a crowded sibling namespace.

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