Inspect a node

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses rich behavioral context: exactly what full mode returns (geometry, fills/strokes/effects, corner radii, auto-layout, text basics, links, child summaries), what raw mode does, the one-node-per-call limit, and the potential for large payloads. This is substantial non-obvious behavior.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The action is front-loaded, and the second sentence packs the detail-level semantics into a compact, scannable format. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates well by explaining the main return modes and warning about raw size. The main gap is that detail=summary is not described, and includeChildren's effect on full output is only implied. These are minor omissions for a tool with such rich description coverage.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning to the detail parameter by explaining what full and raw return, and reiterates the guid format. However, it does not explain the summary enum value, which remains ambiguous for agents choosing between detail levels.

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 inspects one node by guid, with a concrete example ("2:1339"), and enumerates what the response contains. The focus on a single node distinguishes it from siblings like fig_tree or fig_find.

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 implies this is for looking up a specific node when you have its guid, but it never names alternative tools or says when not to use this one. It gives explicit guidance for choosing between detail variants (raw as escape hatch) but not for choosing among sibling tools.

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