Get Figma file versions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond annotations: automatic pagination following and the required OAuth scope (file_versions:read), giving the agent important invocation context.

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?

A single compact sentence packs the endpoint, purpose, pagination behavior, and scope without waste. It is front-loaded with the key information, though a slightly clearer separation between purpose and behavior could make it even more readable.

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 moderately simple read tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral context: endpoint, pagination, and scope. It does not explain the response format, but 'version history' gives a reasonable expectation; annotations cover the read-only safety profile.

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 67%, so the schema documents 'file' and 'auto_paginate' but not 'page_size'. The description's auto-pagination note reinforces the meaning of auto_paginate, but it does not address page_size sizing or behavior, leaving a gap that the schema does not fully fill.

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 ('get') and resource ('/v1/files/{key}/versions') and clarifies the purpose as 'version history'. This distinguishes it from sibling file tools like get_file and get_nodes, none of which target version history.

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 by the phrase 'version history' and the endpoint path, making it clear the tool is for retrieving version data. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives or when not to use it, which is a moderate gap.

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