Figma file metadata

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

Annotations already cover the safe read profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world). The description goes beyond them by disclosing that return shape varies by editor type and explaining why `fileKey` is deliberately null (plugin doesn't request private-plugin access) — genuinely useful behavioral context for interpreting output.

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?

Front-loaded with what is returned, then usage guidance, then editor-specific variations, then the fileKey caveat. Every sentence contributes, though the density of editor-type detail is slightly heavy for such a simple getter.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return-value burden — and it does, enumerating the base fields and the FigJam/Slides extensions. Nothing an agent needs to interpret the response is missing.

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?

With a single `session` parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema carries full semantics. The description adds no meaning about the session parameter itself, so baseline 3 applies.

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 concretely enumerates the resource contents (file name, page list, plugin API version, editor type, current page, selection size), which is far more specific than the tautological title. It doesn't explicitly name a distinguishing sibling like figma_get_pages or figma_get_selection, so it falls just short of 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?

"Start here when you know nothing about the file yet" gives a clear entry-point condition. It also notes behavior differs by editor type (FigJam/Slides), but never states when NOT to use it or routes to an alternative sibling. Clear context, no exclusions.

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