figma_inspect

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true. The description adds the behavioral trait 'never blocked by phase gates,' which provides useful context beyond annotations. It also clarifies that parameters are conditional on the selected target. 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 dense but well-structured: it states purpose, key traits, usage guidance, then a parameter mapping. All sentences are relevant. It could be slightly more concise by separating the parameter listing, but overall it is efficient for the amount of information.

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?

Despite having 5 parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description does not explain the return format or structure for each target (e.g., what fields are returned for 'node' vs 'children'). With no output schema, the description should clarify what the caller can expect. The tool is complex (9 targets), so some gaps remain.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explicitly mapping each target value to its required parameters (e.g., 'nodeId (node/children/parent/text)', 'componentSetKey (variants)', 'sectionName (section)'). This helps the agent understand parameter dependencies beyond the enum labels.

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 'Reads Figma document state' and enumerates nine specific read targets (node, children, parent, etc.). The title annotation 'Inspect Figma document state' reinforces a specific verb+resource. This differentiates from sibling mutation tools like figma_create_frame or figma_update_node.

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 advises using the tool 'to verify state before/after edits, discover node IDs, or check what a component set supports.' It also notes 'Read-only, never blocked by phase gates,' which clarifies when it is safe to call. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it, but the read-only nature and sibling list imply it is not for modifications.

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