figma-mcp-go

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

The description implies a read-only operation ('Scan', 'extracting'), but annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. This is a serious contradiction—scanning and extracting typically imply observation, not destruction. The description fails to explain what gets destroyed or why this mutates state.

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 efficient sentences with zero waste. The first sentence front-loads the core capability, and the second provides immediate use-case context. No redundant or filler 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?

Lacks output schema and fails to describe return values (what format do the scanned text nodes return?). Critically incomplete due to the unexplained destructive annotation—without knowing what gets destroyed, the tool is unsafe to invoke. Does not compensate for missing safety information.

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 coverage, the nodeId parameter is already well-documented with format examples in the schema. The description mentions 'in a subtree' which aligns with the 'Root node ID' schema description but adds minimal semantic value beyond the structured definition.

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 action ('Scan'), resource ('TEXT nodes'), and scope ('in a subtree'). The second sentence clarifies the use case ('extracting all copy'), effectively distinguishing this from generic node retrieval tools like get_node.

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 implied usage context ('Useful for extracting all copy from a component or frame'), indicating when to use it. However, it lacks explicit when-not guidance or mentions of alternatives like scan_nodes_by_types or get_nodes_info.

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