figma_get_file

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Fetch' clearly marks this as a read-only operation, and 'full file tree including all pages, frames, and components' discloses the response scope. It does not discuss authentication or large-payload concerns, but it covers the basic behavioral profile.

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 short sentences, action-first, with no wasted words. The second sentence usefully expands on the return shape rather than repeating the first.

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 tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description plus schema is sufficient to call it correctly. It could add sibling-routing guidance or a note about potentially large responses, but nothing critical for basic invocation 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?

The only parameter, fileKey, is fully documented in the schema with a URL extraction hint, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, which is acceptable because the field is self-explanatory.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('Figma file structure and metadata'), then specifies output scope: the full file tree including all pages, frames, and components. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling figma_get_component, which targets a single component.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives is provided. The phrase 'full file tree' implies whole-file operations, but the agent must infer how this differs from figma_get_component and other siblings.

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