get_figma_node_normalized

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only safety is covered. The description adds output composition and normalization, but it does not disclose behaviors like URL parsing, failure modes, or what 'normalized' entails beyond the listed categories.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and object. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain invocation details. It only vaguely lists output categories, leaving the agent to guess about depth, responseMode, includeRawNode, and other parameter semantics. This is inadequate for correct invocation.

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 0% and the description provides no explanation of the six parameters (figmaUrl, depth, version, responseMode, debugTelemetry, includeRawNode). The schema gives names/types/enums, but the description adds no meaning, making it insufficient for understanding parameter effects.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('Figma node from URL') and enumerates the output items (metadata, tokens, styles, asset refs). The word 'normalized' distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_figma_node_from_url or get_figma_nodes.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternative tools are mentioned. The term 'normalized' implies a particular use case (processed data vs raw), but there is no exclusions or comparative guidance against siblings like get_figma_node_from_url, get_figma_nodes, or parse_figma_url.

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