figma-mcp-go

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

The description contradicts the annotations: it uses the verb 'Get' implying a safe read operation, but annotations declare 'destructiveHint: true' and 'readOnlyHint: false'. The description fails to explain why retrieving reactions would be destructive or non-idempotent, creating serious ambiguity about 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?

The description consists of exactly two sentences with zero redundancy. The first states the core function; the second provides context. Every word earns its place with no filler or structural waste.

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 the presence of complex behavioral annotations (destructive, open-world) and no output schema, the description offers no insight into return values, error conditions, or why a retrieval operation is marked destructive. It inadequately covers the tool's behavioral contract.

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 description coverage for the single 'nodeId' parameter (including format example '4029:12345'), the schema carries the full semantic load. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance, meeting the baseline expectation for high-coverage schemas.

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 the tool retrieves 'prototype/interaction reactions on a node' using the specific verb 'Get'. It effectively distinguishes itself from siblings 'set_reactions' and 'remove_reactions' by positioning itself as the read/inspect operation for prototype interactions.

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?

While the description notes the tool is 'Useful for understanding interactive prototypes,' it provides no guidance on when to use this specific tool versus alternatives like 'get_node' or 'get_nodes_info', nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing a valid nodeId from prior operations.

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