figma_screenshot

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It reveals the output format (base64 images) and the plugin dependency for fileKey, but lacks details on side effects, rate limits, or error handling. This is adequate but leaves gaps for a mutation-free tool.

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 that front-load the core purpose and then provide targeted usage guidance. There is no fluff or repetition of schema fields; every sentence adds value.

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?

For a tool with five optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential operational context: what it does, how to select nodes, and a plugin condition. It lacks explicit alternative differentiation and edge-case behavior, but is sufficient for straightforward screenshot use.

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 only 40%, and the description compensates by clarifying the nodeId/nodeIds relationship and fileKey optionality. However, it does not explain scale or format behavior beyond the schema defaults and enum, leaving fileKey partially under-documented.

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 uses a specific verb 'Screenshot' with a clear resource 'one or more nodes' and specifies the output format 'base64 images'. This distinguishes it from sibling export tools like figma_export_png and figma_export_svg by emphasizing multiple node selection and base64 output.

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 explicit guidance on when to use nodeId vs nodeIds ('Use nodeId for a single node, or nodeIds for multiple nodes in one call') and a conditional clarification for fileKey. However, it does not mention when this tool should be preferred over alternatives like figma_export_png or figma_export_svg.

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