figma_get_console_logs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses key behavioral traits: logs come only from the bridge, not from other plugins, because Figma isolates plugins in separate sandboxes. It explains the workaround for debugging your own plugin. Minor gaps remain around retention, return format, and whether retrieval is a snapshot, but the critical caveat is covered.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the description stays focused on what matters. It runs four sentences and includes a useful caveat about sandboxing, though the middle sentence about Figma's plugin isolation could be tightened slightly.

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?

For a log-retrieval tool with no output schema, the description provides enough context to select and invoke it correctly: it identifies the log source, clarifies the major limitation, and points to figma_execute for debugging. It does not describe log entry structure or retention, but those are not essential to basic 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 100%, so the input parameters (count, level, since) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 (Retrieve) and resource (console logs), and clearly scopes the source: logs captured by the Desktop Bridge plugin from its own execution and bridge activity. It also explicitly states what it does not capture (another plugin's console), which distinguishes it from a general-purpose log reader.

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?

It provides clear when-to-use guidance: run code through figma_execute and read logs here, or use Figma's developer console. It also states when not to use it (another plugin's console). The only gap is that it does not mention the sibling figma_watch_console as an alternative for live/streaming logs.

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