figma_get_node

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

Without any annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It clearly indicates a read operation ('Read') and hints at limits via 'bounded child tree', but it does not explain what the bounds are, how limits are enforced, or any error behavior. This is minimal but not misleading.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or extraneous information.

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?

For a tool with four parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is too brief to be fully complete. It explains the basic purpose and that the tree is bounded, but it omits how the bounds are controlled and what the tool returns in specific scenarios.

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 description coverage is only 25% (only nodeId is described). The description adds only a general notion of 'bounded child tree', which relates to the depth, maxNodes, and maxChildren parameters, but it does not explain their individual meanings or defaults. This is insufficient compensation for 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 uses the specific verb 'Read' and clearly identifies the resource as 'one Figma node by ID', which distinguishes it from sibling tools that work with selections or whole files. The phrase 'including its bounded child tree' further specifies the scope of the operation.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states what it does, without mentioning that it should be used when a specific node ID is known, nor does it reference any sibling tools or exclusions.

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