figma-mcp-go

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

The description fails to disclose critical behavioral traits revealed in annotations. It uses the verb 'Get' which implies safe retrieval, but annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description does not explain what data is destroyed or modified during this 'get' operation, creating a dangerous ambiguity for agent selection.

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 with no redundant words. It front-loads the verb and immediately scopes the operation, achieving maximum information density.

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?

Despite having only one parameter and no output schema, the description is incomplete because it omits the destructive side effects indicated by annotations. For a tool marked as destructive, the description must explain what changes occur, which is absent here.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds valuable semantic context by clarifying that omitting nodeId retrieves annotations for the 'current document' rather than requiring explicit enumeration, effectively documenting the default behavior beyond the 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 identifies the action ('Get') and resource ('dev-mode annotations'), and specifies the scope ('current document or specific node'). However, it does not differentiate from siblings like get_node which might also return annotation data in their outputs.

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 lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_node or get_document. While it implicitly explains the optional nodeId parameter by mentioning 'current document or specific node', it provides no warnings or prerequisites despite the destructive nature of the operation.

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