get_nodes_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. 'Get' implies a read operation with no side effects, but the description does not disclose what 'detailed information' includes, response format, or any limitations. It is not misleading but is minimal.

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 with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity and earns its place.

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's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has gaps. It does not mention what 'detailed information' includes, any node count limits, or the return format, leaving the agent to infer these from the tool name and schema.

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 100%—the parameter 'nodeIds' is described as 'Array of node IDs to get information about'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the schema already provides clear meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get detailed information about multiple nodes in Figma' uses a specific verb ('get'), names the resource ('nodes'), and explicitly indicates plurality ('multiple'), which distinguishes it from the sibling tool get_node_info. It clearly states the tool's primary function.

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 implies when to use this tool ('multiple nodes') but does not explicitly mention the alternative get_node_info for single nodes or state exclusions. The context is clear, but it lacks explicit when-not/alternative guidance.

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