figma_get_text_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world hints. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it only works on TEXT nodes and discloses the exact return structure (textStyleId, fontName, etc.), going beyond the annotations.

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 compact with three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: purpose, usage context, and return structure. No fluff; front-loaded with the action verb.

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 simple single-parameter schema and rich annotations, the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, usage, and return values, but lacks explicit mention of error conditions (e.g., what happens if nodeId is not a TEXT node) or edge cases.

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%, so the description must compensate. It implies that 'nodeId' should be a TEXT node ID but does not explain formats, sources, or validation. This provides minimal added meaning beyond the schema.

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 retrieves specific text properties (text style ID, font properties, fill variable) from a TEXT node, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on text-specific details and even references a particular validation phase.

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 explicitly recommends use during 'Phase 5 validation' to verify design system compliance. While it does not mention when not to use or compare to alternatives, the context is clear and actionable.

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