read_plugin_data

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

With no annotations, the description explains the return value `{value: ''}` for missing keys and notes Figma's API never throws. It also clarifies the difference between private and shared data. No mention of auth or rate limits, but these are typical for the platform.

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 concise and well-structured: purpose, use cases, parameter behavior, return value, and examples. Every sentence serves a clear purpose.

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 no output schema, the description fully covers return value behavior and parameter semantics. Examples provide practical context. No obvious gaps are present.

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. Description adds value by explaining how to resolve node_id and how namespace controls private vs shared access. Examples further clarify parameter usage.

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 'Read plugin data (private or shared) from a Figma node' with specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from siblings like write_plugin_data. Provides explicit use cases such as i18n metadata and design-system tags.

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 explains when to use private vs shared plugin data via the namespace parameter. It includes examples but lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance relative to sibling tools, though the context is clear.

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