scan_text_nodes

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior itself, but it only says 'scan'. It does not clarify whether the operation is read-only, what it returns, how deep the scan goes, or how 'selected' relates to the nodeId. This ambiguity is a significant gap.

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, clear, front-loaded sentence. Every word contributes to the core purpose with no redundancy 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?

Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should explain what 'scan' yields (e.g., list of node IDs, text values) and whether the scan is recursive. It also leaves the 'selected' vs. 'nodeId' relationship unclear, making the tool incomplete for an agent to use confidently.

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 schema already fully documents nodeId as 'ID of the node to scan'. The description adds only the word 'selected', which slightly narrows the context but does not provide meaningful additional semantics beyond the schema.

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 a specific action ('scan') applied to a specific resource ('all text nodes') within a given scope ('selected Figma node'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_text_content or scan_nodes_by_types.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or context such as how the selected node relates to the nodeId parameter.

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