get_design_context

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

With no annotations, the description partially describes behavior: it reveals the 'simplified' nature of the context and suggests using format=compact to reduce token footprint. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, performance characteristics, or what aspects are excluded from the simplified output.

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: first defines purpose and content, second offers a practical tip. No redundant or extraneous information, and critical details are front-loaded.

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?

The description is moderately complete given the tool's complexity (6 params, no output schema). It explains the result content but omits usage guidelines and behavioral transparency. The tip about format is helpful, but overall the description leaves gaps that an agent would need to infer.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% (baseline 3). The description adds value by advising use of format=compact for smaller token footprint and noting that node-id in the URL is honored, which goes beyond the schema's description. No further elaboration on other parameters.

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 simplified design context for a Figma file or node, listing specific content types (layout, fills/strokes/effects, text styles). This distinctively differentiates it from sibling tools like get_metadata or get_screenshot.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where a different tool would be more appropriate, leaving the agent with no criteria for selection.

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