figma-mcp-go

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, which is unexpected for a 'search' operation. The description fails to explain why searching would be destructive, what side effects occur, or why openWorldHint is true. It adds no behavioral context beyond the scope limitation.

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 total. The first states the core function; the second provides the value proposition/constraint. No filler or redundancy—every word earns its place.

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?

Adequate for a search tool with no output schema, but gaps remain: it doesn't describe return values (list of node IDs? full objects?), doesn't explain the destructive annotation, and doesn't specify pagination behavior beyond the limit parameter.

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 baseline is 3. The description maps concepts ('name substring', 'type', 'subtree') to parameters but adds no syntax details, format examples, or semantic constraints beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') with clear resource ('nodes') and scope ('within a subtree'). The second sentence distinguishes it from full-document retrieval tools, addressing sibling differentiation.

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 phrase 'Avoids dumping the entire document tree' implies when to use this tool (targeted searches) versus alternatives like get_document or scan_nodes_by_types. However, it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives or state prerequisites.

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