figma_get_screenshot

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, so the description's job is to explain that behavior — it only hints at it with 'downloaded' and the import prerequisite. It never explains why this getter is not read-only, whether it caches/fetches remotely, or what happens if the design was not imported; a 3 reflects the added prerequisite context without the missing behavioral detail.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the output type is front-loaded ahead of the prerequisite. Minor ambiguity in 'downloaded' and 'reference screen' keeps it below a 5.

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 four-parameter, open-world fetch tool with 0% schema coverage and no required parameters needs the description to explain parameter selection and the import dependency; it does neither beyond one prerequisite sentence. The output type (PNG image content) is covered, but the input side is left largely unexplained.

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% and all four parameters (url, nodeId, fileKey, snapshotId) are undocumented, with zero required. The description adds no meaning about which identifier to supply, whether they are alternatives or combine, or how nodeId differs from snapshotId, so it does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 (Return) and resource (downloaded Figma reference screen as PNG image content), which is clear enough for an agent to know what it gets back. It does not differentiate from siblings such as get_screenshot, download_assets, or figma_export_assets, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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 sentence 'Import the design first for offline access' gives one concrete prerequisite and implicitly points at figma_import. However, there is no guidance on when to use this versus get_screenshot, download_assets, or figma_compare_screen, so usage is only partially implied.

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