figma_get_dev_resources

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get existing dev resources,' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, what permissions are required, or what happens if no dev resources exist. The description adds no details beyond the basic verb and object, failing to disclose important behavioral traits like response format or filtering behavior.

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 description is a single, focused sentence that front-loads the action and resource. There is no fluff, repetition, or unnecessary clauses. It is concise and well-structured for a simple tool.

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?

Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description needs to supply more context for complete understanding. It does not explain return values, permissions, pagination, or how to interpret 'code links.' The tool's moderate complexity (optional filter) and lack of structured metadata make this description insufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly without additional assumptions.

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 50%, so the description should compensate for undocumented parameters. The schema already describes nodeId as a filter, but fileKey has no description. The tool description does not explain either parameter; it only mentions 'attached to nodes in a Figma file,' which weakly maps to fileKey and nodeId but adds no syntactic or semantic detail. This leaves the agent under-informed about required fileKey format or how nodeId interacts with the retrieval.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Get existing dev resources (code links) attached to nodes in a Figma file.' It uses a specific verb ('Get'), names the resource (dev resources/code links), and scopes it to nodes in a Figma file. Though it does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like figma_publish_dev_resources, the phrase 'existing' implies a read-only retrieve operation, providing some differentiation.

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?

Usage is implied: you would call this tool when you need to retrieve code links or dev resources for nodes. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., figma_publish_dev_resources for creating resources), nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The lack of contextual guidance keeps it at a minimum viable level.

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