fetch_figma_file_summary

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states it returns a 'compact metadata summary' and requires a token/OAuth, but omits details on side effects (likely read-only), rate limits, or what the summary includes. More behavioral context is needed for a tool with zero annotations.

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?

Two sentences, no redundancy, front-loaded with essential purpose. Every word adds value. Perfectly concise.

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 2 parameters and no output schema, the description should explain what the metadata summary contains and how maxFrames influences the result. Without this, the tool is incomplete for correct invocation and interpretation.

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 has 2 parameters (fileKey, maxFrames) with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain either parameter or how they affect behavior. 'Compact metadata summary' does not clarify the role of maxFrames, leaving agents without semantic understanding.

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 action (Fetch), resource (Figma file), and scope (compact metadata summary). It also mentions authentication requirements (locally configured token, OAuth files.read). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_figma_status or parse_figma_url.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_figma_status or parse_figma_url. It mentions OAuth requirements but no context on when not to use or which sibling is better suited.

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