figma_get_screenshot

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It states the tool exports a PNG image, but doesn't mention behavior with no selection/nodeId, scale constraints, or potential errors. It adds minimal context beyond the schema.

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 primary action and object, with no redundant wording or filler.

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 tool is simple with two optional parameters and no output schema. The description covers the main purpose and nodeId semantics. It could improve by mentioning what happens if neither selection nor nodeId is available, but overall it's adequate for its complexity.

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 50% (nodeId is described, scale is not). The description clarifies that nodeId defaults to the current selection ('current selection or a Figma node'), adding meaning to that parameter. However, scale is not mentioned or explained.

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 ('Export') and clearly identifies the resource ('the current selection or a Figma node as a PNG image'). It distinguishes itself from sibling get-style tools by focusing on image export rather than data retrieval.

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 'for visual comparison' implies a use case, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. Sibling tools are all read-only getters, making this the clear export option, but the description doesn't emphasize that distinction.

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