@nvanexan/figma-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions what gets extracted (layout, styles, text, dimensions), it doesn't address important behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens with invalid URLs. The description provides some context but leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word earns its place - 'Extract' (action), 'design context' (what), 'from a Figma URL' (source), 'as CSS-like properties' (output format). No wasted words or redundant 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?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose but lacks important contextual information. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (beyond 'CSS-like properties'), doesn't mention authentication or rate limiting, and doesn't provide examples of what 'design context' includes beyond the parenthetical list. The 100% schema coverage helps, but the description itself is incomplete for a tool that extracts complex design data.

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 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already fully documents both parameters. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it mentions 'Figma URL' and 'depth' concepts but provides no additional context about URL formats beyond what the schema specifies or how depth affects the extraction.

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 specific action ('Extract'), target resource ('design context from a Figma URL'), and output format ('CSS-like properties'). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'get_figma_image' by focusing on contextual data extraction rather than image generation.

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 usage through the phrase 'from a Figma URL' but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No guidance is provided about when not to use it or what specific scenarios it's designed for beyond the general extraction purpose.

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