figmad-mcp

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 efficiency compared to 'get_file', which is useful context, but lacks details on permissions, error handling, rate limits, or what happens if nodes are not found. It adequately describes the core behavior but misses operational traits.

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 sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose, and the second provides usage guidance. It is front-loaded with the core function and efficiently contrasts with alternatives, 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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is complete enough for a simple retrieval tool. It explains what the tool does and when to use it, but lacks details on return values (e.g., node structure) or error cases. For a tool with no structured data, it meets minimum viability but has gaps in output explanation.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds value by explaining the tool's purpose and usage context, which compensates for the lack of parameters. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, as the description provides meaningful semantics beyond the empty schema.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('specific nodes from a Figma file by their IDs'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_file' (full file) and 'get_selection' (selected nodes). It explicitly contrasts with 'get_file' for efficiency when node IDs are known.

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 this tool ('when you know what nodes you need') and when not to use it (vs. 'getting the full file'), naming the alternative 'get_file' implicitly. It clearly defines the optimal context for usage.

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