scan_text_nodes

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 mentions deprecation, a significant behavioral trait, but does not disclose other behaviors like side effects, permissions, or performance implications.

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 extremely concise, using a single sentence with a clear deprecation warning. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

Given the lack of an output schema, the description could have explained the return value or behavior of the tool. It fails to do so, although the deprecation note partially compensates by directing users to an alternative. The input is fully covered by the schema.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage with a description for 'nodeId'. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond 'ID of the node to scan', so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 scans all text nodes within a selected Figma node. It uses a specific verb ('scan') and resource ('text nodes'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'scan_nodes_by_types' by being deprecated and focusing on text nodes.

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 explicitly marks the tool as deprecated and directs users to use 'scan_nodes_with_options' instead, providing clear guidance on when not to use this tool and what alternative to use.

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