Talk to Figma MCP

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 that the tool retrieves reactions and that the output requires immediate processing, which adds some behavioral context. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error handling, leaving gaps for a mutation-related tool.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and includes a critical instruction in a clear, imperative sentence. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without waste, making it highly efficient.

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 complexity (retrieving reactions for potential mutations), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is fairly complete by specifying the purpose and downstream usage. However, it could improve by detailing the output format or error cases, slightly reducing completeness.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the 'nodeIds' parameter. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining what node IDs are or how to obtain them, but it meets the baseline since the schema is comprehensive.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'Figma Prototyping Reactions from multiple nodes', making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_annotations' or 'get_node_info', which might also retrieve node-related data, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool by stating that the output MUST be processed with 'reaction_to_connector_strategy' prompt to generate parameters for the 'create_connections' tool. This clearly links it to a specific workflow and alternative tool, offering strong usage context.

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