get_node_tree

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses the key behavioral trait: a default depth cap of 15 levels and the reason (avoiding a hang on huge trees), plus the fact that it is a targeted read rather than a whole-file download. It does not describe truncation signaling in the response, permissions, or rate-limit behavior, which keeps it below 5.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then scope, then the depth constraint and remedy. No filler and each clause carries information an agent needs.

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 3-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what comes back, the default truncation behavior, and how to size the request first. It leaves error behavior (invalid nodeId) and whether a truncated result is flagged in the payload unaddressed, which is a minor but real 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so a 3 is the baseline, but the description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema by framing maxDepth as a cost/control tradeoff (raise it only if you truly need deeper nesting) and by suggesting get_metadata as a way to size the tree before choosing a depth. The schema already documents nodeId format and the default of 15, so the remaining value added is moderate rather than decisive.

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 names a specific verb and resource (returns the tree of one Figma node — frame/section) and enumerates the returned payload (layout, fills, strokes, text, inline styles, components). It also scopes the operation negatively ('does not download the whole file'), which separates it from a bulk-file read. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling get_node, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It gives concrete routing advice: call get_metadata first to gauge size, or pass an explicit maxDepth when deeper traversal is needed. That is clear use-context plus a named alternative. It does not state when this tool should be avoided in favor of get_node or find_node, so exclusions are missing.

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