get_figma_images

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

The description adds that the output is image URLs, which is not covered by the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations. It does not disclose rate limits, authentication needs, or error behaviors, but annotations already establish it as a safe 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 a single, concise sentence that conveys the essential function without 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?

Given the absence of an output schema and the presence of seven parameters, the description is far too brief. It does not explain the return value format, the relationship between nodeIds and rendering, or any edge cases, making it incomplete for a tool of this complexity.

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 provides no meaningful explanation of parameters such as fileKey, nodeIds, scale, format, or responseMode. It only generically mentions 'nodes' and 'image URLs', leaving the agent to guess the purpose and constraints of each parameter.

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 renders Figma nodes to image URLs, specifying its purpose and distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_figma_nodes or generate_flutter_component_from_figma. It covers the core function without ambiguity.

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?

Usage is implied: when image URLs for Figma nodes are needed for assets or previews. However, there is no explicit mention of when not to use this tool or comparison with alternatives, leaving the decision to the agent's inference.

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