figma_get_images

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only reveals that the operation returns download URLs, which is useful, but it doesn't indicate whether the operation is read-only, if any mutations occur, rate limits, or authentication requirements. This is insufficient for full transparency.

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 two short sentences, each with clear value. 'Export nodes as images.' states the primary action, and 'Returns download URLs.' adds the output type. There is no fluff or redundancy, making it highly concise and front-loaded.

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 tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide more complete context. It covers the basic purpose and return value but omits parameter semantics, usage guidance, and behavioral details. This is short of what is needed for a tool with multiple export siblings.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining the parameters. It mentions none of the four parameters (fileKey, nodeIds, scale, format), leaving the agent to infer their meaning from names alone, which is not reliable for the scale and format specifics.

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: export nodes as images and return download URLs. This is specific and understandable, but it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling export tools like figma_export_svg or figma_export_png, which could have similar purposes.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions for choosing this over other export tools, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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