get_cached_figma_node

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 does disclose what the tool returns (all node properties) and the effect of the depth and simplified parameters. However, it never explains what 'cached' means behaviorally—e.g., whether results may be stale, whether a live fetch is avoided, or any side-effect/safety profile—which is notable given the tool name.

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?

Three sentences, no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, followed immediately by workflow context and parameter tips. Every sentence earns its place and the description is compact for the amount of guidance it provides.

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 4-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the key context: what is returned, how to obtain node IDs, and how to reduce output size. It does not address caching behavior, authentication, or error cases, but for a simple node-fetch operation these are minor gaps.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by recommending when to use each parameter: depth to 'limit' and 'reduce response size', simplified for 'AI-optimized output' and 'large nodes'. This gives practical decision context not fully captured by the schema alone.

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 and resource: 'Get detailed information for a specific node including all properties (type, name, layout, style, children, etc.)'. It clearly scopes the tool to node-level detail and differentiates it from sibling file-level or search tools by saying 'Use this after finding a node ID via search or list_figma_frames'.

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 clear sequencing: use after obtaining a node ID via search or list_figma_frames. It also gives pragmatic guidance for both parameters (depth to limit children, simplified for AI-optimized output). It stops short of explicitly naming which alternatives to use instead (e.g., get_cached_figma_file for file-level), so it misses full when-not coverage.

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