figma-mcp-go

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

CRITICAL CONTRADICTION: Description portrays a read-only operation ('List'), but annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true. The description completely fails to disclose what gets destroyed or why this is not read-only, directly contradicting the safety annotations provided.

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 sentences with zero waste: first establishes function and return values, second provides sibling differentiation. Efficiently front-loaded with the primary action.

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 functional description is adequate for a zero-parameter listing tool, the failure to address the destructive annotation (or correct the apparent error) leaves critical behavioral context missing. No output schema exists to compensate.

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?

Input schema contains zero parameters. Per evaluation rules, 0 parameters establishes a baseline score of 4. No parameter description is needed or provided.

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?

States specific action ('List') and resource ('pages in the document') plus return values ('IDs and names'). Explicitly distinguishes from sibling 'get_document' by positioning as a 'Lightweight alternative'.

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?

Provides comparative context naming the sibling alternative ('get_document') and implies usage when a lightweight option is preferred. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' or specific trade-off details (e.g., what data is excluded vs get_document).

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