figma_document

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by specifying that the node tree is 'bounded' and that this should be called before write operations, though it does not detail pagination or return format.

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 short sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the workflow guidance follows immediately.

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 only three optional parameters and no output schema, the description lists what is read (pages, selected nodes, documentId, node tree), giving a reasonable sense of return contents. It covers the essential calling context for a read-only tool, though parameter-level details remain thin.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning for depth ('bounded node tree') and hints at nodeId ('selected nodes') and pageId ('pages'), but it does not fully document parameter behavior or defaults, leaving gaps.

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 ('Read') and names concrete resources: pages, selected nodes, documentId, and a bounded node tree. It is clear what the tool returns, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling read tools like figma_status or figma_fonts.

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 phrase 'Call before writes' provides explicit workflow guidance relative to the write-oriented siblings (figma_create_nodes, figma_update_nodes, figma_delete_nodes). It lacks named exclusions or alternatives, but the timing guidance is clear.

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