figma_scan_text_nodes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'chunking' as a behavior, but does not explain how chunking works, whether the operation is read-only, what happens with large result sets, or what the response contains. This is a significant transparency gap.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. However, it is under-specified, which prevents a perfect score for conciseness since it skips essential details.

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?

The tool has 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description must provide substantial context. It only states the basic purpose and mentions chunking, but does not describe return values, pagination mechanics, or the role of parentNodeId. This is inadequate for reliable 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. 'Chunking' hints at the purpose of chunkSize and chunkIndex, but parentNodeId is left unexplained. The description does not provide enough meaning for the parameters to be used correctly.

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 identifies the action ('Scan') and the target resource ('text nodes'), and mentions a distinguishing feature ('chunking for large pages'). This differentiates it from sibling tools like figma_scan_nodes_by_types, though the exact output or return value is not specified.

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 'for large pages' implies a use case but does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives or provide exclusions. No sibling tools are referenced, so guidance is only implied, not stated.

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