fetch_figma_node_image

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Fetches') and output format ('base64'), but lacks critical details such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether the operation is idempotent. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and output. Every word serves a purpose—specifying the resource, parameters, and return format—with no redundant or vague phrasing, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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's moderate complexity (2 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the basic purpose and output but lacks depth. It doesn't address authentication, error handling, or usage context, which are important for a tool that interacts with an external API. While adequate for simple use, it falls short of being fully comprehensive.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters well-documented in the input schema. The description adds minimal value by mentioning the parameters ('file key and node ID') but doesn't provide additional context beyond what the schema already covers, such as format specifics or edge cases. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Fetches a PNG image'), the resource ('of a Figma node or frame'), and the mechanism ('using the file key and node ID'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'generate_pseudo_code_from_figma_frame' by focusing on image retrieval rather than code generation, making the purpose unambiguous and well-differentiated.

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 or any prerequisites. While it mentions the required parameters, it doesn't explain scenarios where fetching an image is appropriate compared to other Figma operations or the sibling tool, leaving usage context entirely implicit.

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