figma-mcp-go

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

The description contradicts the annotations. It describes a 'Get' operation implying a safe read, but annotations declare `readOnlyHint: false` and `destructiveHint: true`. This is a serious inconsistency—metadata retrieval should not be destructive, making the behavioral profile unsafe or misleading.

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, efficiently structured sentence that front-loads the action ('Get metadata') and follows with a colon-delimited list of specific return values. No words are wasted.

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?

Without an output schema, the description compensates by listing return values (file name, pages, current page). However, the annotation contradiction creates a critical gap in understanding the tool's safety profile, and there's no explanation for why a metadata retrieval would be marked destructive.

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, establishing a baseline score of 4. With no parameters to describe, the description appropriately focuses on the return value semantics rather than input requirements.

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 resource ('metadata about the current Figma document'), and explicitly lists the returned fields (file name, pages, current page). This distinguishes it from siblings like `get_document` (likely full structure) and `get_pages` (likely just page list), though it doesn't explicitly state these distinctions.

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_document`, `get_design_context`, or `get_pages`. It states what the tool returns but not why an agent should choose this over other 'get' siblings.

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