figma-mcp-go

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, which is unexpected for a 'get' operation and suggests state modification or side effects. The description fails to explain this destructive nature or why it isn't read-only. It only adds that the function returns base64-encoded data, which is helpful but insufficient given the alarming annotation profile.

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 defines the operation, second defines the return format. Perfectly front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 usefully specifies the return format (base64 image data). It covers the core functionality adequately, though it misses explanation of the destructive behavior flagged in annotations. Given the simple parameter structure, this is nearly complete.

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, the schema fully documents parameters (format options, colon-format nodeIds, scale defaults). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the 'selected or specific' dichotomy for nodeIds, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (export screenshot) and target (selected/specific nodes) clearly. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tool 'save_screenshots', which appears to have similar functionality.

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?

Lacks explicit 'when to use' guidance or comparison to alternatives. The mention of 'Returns base64-encoded image data' implicitly suggests this is for programmatic data retrieval versus file saving, but does not name alternatives like 'save_screenshots' or 'export_frames_to_pdf'.

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