Get Figma comments

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond those annotations by disclosing that the response is the complete comment list and that pagination is not used, plus the optional as_md behavior.

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 uses two sentences to convey endpoint, operation, pagination behavior, and a parameter option. There is no filler or repetition; each clause earns its place.

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?

The tool definition is simple enough that the description is mostly adequate: the agent knows what is returned, that it is not paginated, and that as_md is possible. However, because there is no output schema, the description does not otherwise describe the shape or useful fields of the comment objects, which leaves a minor 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?

The input schema already covers both parameters completely at 100% coverage, so the description is not required to add much. The only additive text, 'Optional as_md,' mostly repeats the schema's boolean/markdown behavior rather than explaining deeper semantics like format details or defaults.

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 identifies a specific verb and resource: GET /v1/files/{key}/comments and 'Figma returns the full comment list.' The 'not cursor-paginated' qualifier adds a scope that distinguishes it from other comment-related tools such as get_comment, post_comment, and delete_comment.

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?

Usage is implied: this is clearly the read-all-comments tool for a file. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it instead of get_comment, get_comment_reactions, post_comment, or delete_comment, so the agent must infer the intended selection rather than being told.

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