figma_get_tree

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses almost nothing. "Ограниченное" vaguely implies bounded traversal but never explains what the bound is, how the cursor parameter affects it, whether the operation is a safe read, or what happens when depth/limit are hit.

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?

It is a single six-word fragment: zero waste and front-loaded, but grossly undersized for a tool with five parameters, a nested scope object, and pagination. Conciseness here is a symptom of under-specification rather than efficient writing.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be described, and that is the only thing the description is excused from. For a tool whose required inputs include a session/connection-generation envelope and a root node id, with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description is nowhere near complete enough to call it correctly.

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 0% across five parameters, including a nested scope object (sessionId, connectionGeneration) and a cursor for paging, and the description adds no meaning to any of them. At most, "ограниченное дерево" faintly maps to depth/limit, which is far short of compensating for the documentation gap.

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?

"Ограниченное дерево узлов текущей сессии" names the resource (a node tree of the current session) and signals bounded output, so the general intent is recoverable. But it is a bare noun phrase with no explicit verb, and it makes no attempt to distinguish itself from figma_get_nodes, figma_find_nodes, or figma_get_context, which all sound like ways to read Figma nodes.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: no statement of which sibling to prefer for a full-node fetch versus a search versus a tree walk. The only implicit signal is "текущей сессии" (current session), which hints at scoping but gives no decision rule.

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