rest_get_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that this is a 'Headless read' (implying non-mutating) and that it requires FIGMA_ACCESS_TOKEN, which are useful. However, it does not address potential behavioral details like response size, pagination, rate limits, or error handling on invalid tokens.

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, information-dense sentence that leads with the core action ('Headless read') and resource, then enumerates the included data categories. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 read-only metadata tool with only two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key essentials: what is retrieved, that it is a headless/REST operation, and the authentication requirement. It does not explain how to obtain the fileKey, but the schema already provides an example, so this is not a critical gap.

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 both fileKey and depth, including the default depth value. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('read') and resource ('full Figma file metadata, version history, components, styles, and document tree'), making the tool's purpose obvious. It is implicitly distinguished from siblings like rest_get_file_nodes and rest_get_components by emphasizing 'full file', but it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 about when to choose this tool over siblings such as rest_get_file_nodes, get_document_info, or rest_get_components. The description mentions the access token requirement but offers no use-case context or exclusions, leaving the selection decision entirely to the agent.

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