figma_get_tree

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context by noting the output is a 'compact outline' and that omitting node_id returns all pages, which is useful beyond the schema. However, it does not describe pagination behavior, output structure nuances, or the meaning of 'hints', so it only partially complements the 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?

The description is a single, tight sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Compact outline of the layer tree') and immediately follows with the most important behavioral tip (omit node_id for all pages). Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition.

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 outline tool with a well-documented schema and safety annotations, the description conveys the essential purpose and key default behavior. It does not explicitly guide selection among the many sibling tools, but the term 'compact outline' offers enough distinction. Given the absence of an output schema, a brief note on return shape or the meaning of 'hints' would improve completeness, but the current definition is adequate for correct invocation.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by instructing 'Omit node_id for all pages,' which clarifies the default behavior of the node_id parameter. This is a meaningful semantic addition that helps an agent correctly use the tool without opening 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 the tool retrieves a 'compact outline of the layer tree' with specific fields (id, type, name, size, hints), which identifies the verb and resource. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the phrase 'compact outline' and the instruction to omit node_id for all pages differentiate it from more detailed or targeted tools like get_node or search.

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 gives one explicit usage instruction: 'Omit node_id for all pages.' This implies when the tool is appropriate (whole-file tree overview) but does not state when to prefer a sibling like get_node or token_usage, nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance. The usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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