figma_get_slots

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it implies a read-only list, discloses the payload shape, and importantly states that fileKey "does not change the active file or target lock" and that Cloud Mode rejects it. The main gap is that permissions, error behavior (e.g. non-slot node, no slots found), and empty-result semantics are unstated.

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 purpose and return contents in sentence one, guidance in sentence two, and multi-file caveat last with a bold lead-in that scans well. Slight redundancy: the fileKey multi-file explanation is repeated almost verbatim between description and schema.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description compensates by naming the returned fields, and it covers the non-obvious local-vs-cloud mode split. For a two-parameter read tool this is nearly sufficient; only error/empty-result handling is missing.

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 both nodeId and fileKey are already fully documented in the schema, giving a baseline of 3. The description largely restates the fileKey/multi-file note rather than adding syntax or value-format detail beyond the schema.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource: "List SlotNode children on a component, component set, or instance," and then enumerates exactly what is returned (slot IDs, names, property keys, dimensions, current children). An agent can tell this apart from nearby slot tools like figma_create_slot and figma_append_to_slot without opening a 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 an explicit placement in the workflow: "Use on instances before figma_append_to_slot to discover slot names/IDs," naming the sibling it feeds. The node-type restriction (component/component set/instance) is stated. There is no explicit "don't use this when..." exclusion, so it falls just short of the top mark.

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