figma-mcp-go

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

The description contradicts the provided annotations. It describes a read operation ('Get'), but annotations declare readOnlyHint: false and destructiveHint: true. A 'get' operation should not be destructive; this inconsistency could mislead the agent about side effects and safety.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the action ('Get') and immediately specifies the return value components. There is no redundant or wasted text.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description appropriately lists the specific data fields returned (scroll center, zoom level, visible bounds). However, it could be improved by noting the coordinate system or format of these values, and it fails to explain the destructive annotation flag.

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 tool has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage trivially. With no parameters to describe, the baseline score applies. The description does not need to compensate for missing parameter documentation.

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 specific resource (Figma viewport) and the specific attributes retrieved (scroll center, zoom level, visible bounds). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar 'get' siblings like get_screenshot or get_selection, though the specificity of 'viewport' provides implicit distinction.

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. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where other viewport-related tools (if they existed) would be more appropriate.

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