get_figma_node_from_url

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the input format; it doesn't disclose error handling, return structure, or rate limits. This is acceptable but not enriched beyond annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently conveys the core action and input requirement.

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 six parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is minimal. It covers the primary use case but lacks detail on optional parameters, expected return values, and potential errors, making it incomplete for complex usage.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning, but it only clarifies figmaUrl. The other five parameters (depth, version, geometry, responseMode, debugTelemetry) remain undocumented in both schema and description, leaving a significant gap.

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 a specific verb ('Fetch'), a specific resource ('a specific Figma node'), and the source ('directly from a full Figma URL'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_figma_nodes (which likely takes separate file/key and node IDs) and parse_figma_url (which parses URLs), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 the use case: when you have a full Figma URL and need to extract a specific node. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context of sibling tools (e.g., get_figma_nodes, parse_figma_url) plus the phrase 'directly from a full Figma URL' gives strong contextual guidance.

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