Read Figma Node

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the fallback behavior when nodeId is omitted, which is valuable. However, it does not explain what the tool returns, how the depth parameter affects results, or any potential side effects, leaving gaps for a read operation.

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 two sentences, leading with the primary action and adding a conditional fallback without any unnecessary detail. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should cover return values and parameter effects. It covers the nodeId default but leaves depth and timeout entirely unexplained, and gives no indication of the response structure, making it incomplete for real-world use.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It indirectly explains nodeId by describing the omission behavior, adding some meaning. However, depth and timeoutMs are never mentioned, so the description fails to compensate for the other two parameters.

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 uses the specific verb 'read' with the resource 'Figma node' and explicitly mentions the nodeId parameter, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like figma_get_selection or figma_set_text. The added fallback behavior for omitted nodeId further clarifies its scope.

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?

It states that if nodeId is omitted, it reads the first selected node in the active page, providing a clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or conditions when not to use it, so it lacks exclusionary guidance.

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