figma_get_nodes

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only mentions that the request is batched, but offers no details about read-only safety, potential request limits, response behavior, or other side effects. This is minimal beyond the name itself.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't mention return values, node limits, or parameter details. While the tool is conceptually simple, the sparse description leaves too many gaps for confident 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 0% and the description provides no explanation of the parameters (fileKey, nodeIds, depth). With such low schema coverage, the description must compensate, but it offers nothing, leaving parameter semantics entirely unexplained.

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 explicitly states 'Get multiple nodes in one request', clearly identifying the action and resource. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool figma_get_node by calling itself a 'Batch alternative', making the purpose unambiguous.

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 phrase 'Batch alternative to get_node' gives clear context that this tool is for fetching multiple nodes in a single request, implying the alternative is to call get_node repeatedly. However, it lacks explicit exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance, so it doesn't fully reach a 5.

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