Inspect local Figma text

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds real semantics on top: the 30-layer cap, instance traversal, and the visibility rule that hidden layers are only reachable via explicit text IDs. Only the return shape details (beyond an enumerated list) are thin.

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 dense sentences with no filler, and the input modes are front-loaded before the return contents. Slightly compressed to the point of reading as a spec dump, but nothing is wasted.

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 correctly tells the agent what comes back (font runs, visibility, dimensions, revisions). It omits any mention of the plugin connection prerequisite that connectionId encodes, which is the main remaining gap for a two-parameter read tool.

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 both nodeIds and connectionId are already documented in the schema, and the description's container-versus-text-ID sentence largely restates the nodeIds schema text. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb (inspect) and resource (text nodes/containers) plus the two input modes (selection vs explicit IDs). It reads distinctly from siblings like figma_local_fonts_search and figma_local_fonts_edit, though it never names them to force the contrast.

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?

Gives clear routing within the tool: containers yield visible nested text, explicit text IDs can reach hidden layers. It doesn't say when to prefer search or edit instead, so the cross-tool guidance is implied rather than stated.

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