figma_get_page_nodes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the tool's safety profile is clear. The description adds context about what data is returned but does not elaborate on behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes critical details (names, IDs, positions, dimensions). No unnecessary words.

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 has no parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description is largely complete. It explains the action and the data returned. However, it does not clarify what 'current Figma page' means (e.g., how it is determined) or mention any limits, but for a simple list operation, it is sufficient.

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 input schema has no parameters, so schema description coverage is 100% (trivially). With 0 parameters, the baseline is 4. The description does not add parameter information as none exist, but it correctly describes the output, which is the only meaningful addition.

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 the tool lists all top-level nodes on the current Figma page, specifying the returned information (names, IDs, positions, dimensions). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like figma_get_node_children (which gets children of a specific node) and figma_get_pages (which lists pages).

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it implies it is for getting an overview of the current page's top-level structure, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or when to prefer other tools like figma_get_selection or figma_get_node_children.

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