figma_get_component_image

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose the key behavioral fact: it returns an image URL valid for 30 days, which matters for caching and reuse decisions. It does not cover connection/auth requirements (the fileUrl auto-detection note lives only in the schema) or failure modes for unsupported node types, so it falls short of complete.

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-loaded with the core action and return contract, then usage rules. The trailing 'Best for: visual references, design review, documentation' list partially overlaps the earlier 'Use when user asks for' clause, adding a small amount of padding.

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?

Covers purpose, routing, output lifetime, and format options for a 4-parameter tool with no output schema. Minor gap: it doesn't clarify whether arbitrary non-component nodes are supported or what errors occur when disconnected.

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 every parameter (nodeId, fileUrl, format, scale) is already documented with examples and defaults. The description only restates the format enum, adding no new semantics. Baseline 3 is correct.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Render a specific component or node as an image' with the output formats enumerated. It explicitly distinguishes itself from figma_get_component (metadata) and figma_get_component_for_development (code/layout), so an agent can route correctly without opening any 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?

Contains explicit trigger phrases ('component screenshot', 'visual preview', 'show me') plus two named NOT-for cases with the sibling tool to use instead. This is the when/when-not/alternatives pattern at full strength.

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