下载 Figma 设计资源到本地

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

Annotations already declare openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive mutation, so the description's flow (fetch, analyze, download via localhost) provides some useful context about internal steps and authentication-like localhost URLs. However, it does not reveal what gets written, whether existing files are overwritten, or any rate limits, which are important for a non–read-only 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 structured with a clear flow list and parameter/return sections, and it is front-loaded with the main action. It is slightly repetitive (e.g., repeating parameter names from schema) but overall efficient.

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 annotations covering safety hints and no output schema, the description provides the core process and return summary. However, it omits details about file overwrite behavior, error handling, permissions needed for localhost downloads, and any workspace path constraints, leaving gaps for a write operation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters fully. The description repeats the same parameter names with '必填' but adds no additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('分析指定节点并将所有图片/SVG 资源下载到本地目录') and clearly distinguishes it from siblings like figma_get_screenshot or figma_analyze_structure by emphasizing the download-to-local action.

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 by '分析指定节点' and the download flow, but there are no explicit when-to-use/when-not-use statements or alternative tools mentioned. An agent can infer the context but is not given guidance on choosing this tool over siblings.

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