get_metadata

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the /design/ file restriction, the root-at-nodeId vs top-level-pages behavior, and the output format (XML string). It doesn't mention auth requirements or rate limits, but the sibling auth tools and the read-only nature of the operation are reasonably inferable. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 compact and front-loaded: the main action and output are stated first, then usage guidance, then the critical restriction. Every sentence earns its place; no 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?

For a read-only exploration tool with a clear output format and explicit usage guidance, the description is nearly complete. It doesn't describe pagination or depth limits of the XML tree, and it doesn't mention auth requirements, but the sibling auth tools and the simple two-parameter schema make those gaps minor.

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 parameters. The description adds the semantic meaning of omitting nodeId (lists pages) and the fileKey extraction hint is already in the schema. It doesn't add much beyond the schema, but the baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb ('Returns'), a specific resource ('XML document outline for a Figma design file'), and enumerates the content (node IDs, layer names, types, positions, sizes). It also distinguishes itself from get_design_context by name, so an agent can tell them apart.

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?

Explicitly says to use this to explore unfamiliar files before calling get_design_context, and to prefer get_design_context for design-to-code. It also states the /design/ file restriction and the nodeId-omitted behavior. This is clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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