figma_inspect

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that results are capped and how to work around that, plus the default target and format. It omits any mention of permissions, connection/auth prerequisites, or error behavior, so it is good but not fully complete for an unannotated tool.

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?

Front-loads the core action and target selection before the format catalog, and every clause carries information. It is dense and long, but little of it is wasted given the number of formats and parameters to document.

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 no output schema, the description does the work of describing what each format returns, which is exactly what is needed here. Missing explanations for maxNodes and only partial guidance on expandInstances are the only real gaps for a seven-parameter tool.

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 only 43%, but the description compensates well: it fully explains all five format enum values (which the schema lists only as bare strings), the three target options, and the depth/offset/limit controls. It does not explain maxNodes or clarify expandInstances beyond the schema's own note, leaving a small 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read Figma nodes') and immediately disambiguates the three possible targets (selection, page, node id). It also enumerates the five output formats with their defaults, so an agent knows exactly what the tool produces without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear format-selection guidance ('summary ... cheap for big frames', 'plan ... send to figma_preview_plan') and routing for oversized answers ('use summary, a smaller depth, or offset/limit'). It does not, however, state when to prefer this over sibling inspection tools like figma_get_design_context or figma_analyze_design, so there is no explicit exclusion.

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