figma-mcp-go

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

The description presents a 'List' operation as read-only, but annotations declare readOnlyHint: false and destructiveHint: true. This is a serious contradiction—a listing operation should not be destructive. The description adds no context about what gets destroyed or why a getter has side effects.

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?

Two well-structured sentences with no waste: first states the operation, second states the value proposition. Every word earns its place.

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?

While the description explains what is returned (font list), it completely omits the destructive nature indicated by annotations. For a tool marked destructive with no output schema, the description must explain side effects, which it fails to do.

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, so baseline is 4. The description appropriately does not fabricate parameter explanations where none exist, though it could have mentioned the implicit 'current page' context as a conceptual input.

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 it 'List[s] all fonts used in the current page' with specific sorting (usage frequency), providing a clear verb and resource. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like scan_text_nodes by noting it works 'without scanning all text 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 second sentence provides implied usage guidance ('Useful for understanding typography'), suggesting when to use it. However, it lacks explicit when-not guidance or named alternatives, and fails to mention prerequisites or side effects implied by the annotations.

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