scan_text_nodes

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

There are no annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it describe the return format or any potential side effects. While 'scan' is generally safe, the lack of any safety or behavioral context is a gap.

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, clear sentence with no redundant information. It is concise and front-loaded, stating exactly what the tool does.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description gives a basic understanding of scope (text nodes within a node) but does not explain what the tool actually returns (e.g., a list of text node IDs or contents). The ambiguity around 'selected Figma node' versus the nodeId parameter also reduces completeness.

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?

The schema describes nodeId as 'ID of the node to scan', which fully covers the parameter's semantics (100% schema coverage). The description adds no additional parameter detail, 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 clearly states a specific action ('Scan all text nodes') on a specific resource ('the selected Figma node'), which is distinct from sibling tools like scan_nodes_by_types which covers other node types. It precisely names what the tool does.

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 usage when you need to find text nodes within a specific node, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this over alternatives like scan_nodes_by_types or get_node_info. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned, so it falls at 'implied usage'.

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