figma-mcp-go

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

The description contradicts the annotations: it uses 'Get' implying a safe read operation, but annotations declare 'destructiveHint: true' and 'readOnlyHint: false'. The description fails to explain why retrieving a document tree would be destructive or mention the 'openWorldHint: true' indicating external system interaction.

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 filler words. It is appropriately front-loaded with the action verb and maintains focus on the core functionality.

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 annotations that indicate destructive behavior, the description provides no explanation for this trait. With no output schema provided, the description should ideally clarify the return structure or side effects, especially given the destructive annotation flag.

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 zero parameters. According to the baseline rules, 0 params warrants a baseline score of 4. The description correctly implies no parameterization is needed for this operation.

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 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'current Figma page document tree'. However, it does not clearly distinguish from siblings like 'get_node' or 'get_nodes_info' which also retrieve document data, leaving ambiguity about when to use the full tree vs specific nodes.

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 like 'get_node' or 'get_nodes_info'. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or workflow context provided.

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