figma_get_design_context

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool aggregates data (read operation) and mentions 'bounded structure', hinting at output limiting. However, it doesn't cover permissions, error handling, rate limits, or performance implications, leaving behavioral transparency incomplete.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a compact list of included content. Every phrase adds necessary information with no wasted words.

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 gives a clear overall purpose but lacks details on return structure, parameter behavior, or caveats. Given the absence of an output schema and six parameters, the description is adequate but not thorough, leaving an agent to infer important usage details.

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?

Only nodeId has a schema description (17% coverage). The description hints at depth/maxNodes/maxChildren via 'bounded structure' and includeScreenshot via 'optional screenshot', but does not define scale or clarify the relationship between depth and maxChildren. This partial compensation is insufficient given the low schema coverage.

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 builds an implementation-ready context pack from a selection or node, listing specific content types (tokens, components, variables, styles, assets, screenshot). This distinctly differentiates it from sibling get_* tools that each return a narrower slice.

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 specifies it is for generating a comprehensive context pack, implying when to use this over simpler getters. It provides clear context but does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, though the 'implementation-ready' framing is informative.

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