figma_get_file_data

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

The description adds behavioral details beyond the annotation (readOnlyHint=true), such as caching (60s per session) and default parameter values. It aligns with the annotation, reinforcing the non-destructive, read-only nature.

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 is concise (4 sentences) and front-loads the main purpose. It efficiently covers key points without redundancy, though it could be slightly more structured with bullet points for defaults.

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?

Given the complexity (10 parameters, no output schema), the description lacks details about the return format (document tree structure) and how parameters affect it. The caching behavior is mentioned, but the overall output shape is unclear.

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?

With only 30% schema coverage, the description partially compensates by explaining fileKey/figmaUrl and defaults for depth and verbosity. However, it omits explanations for the six boolean include parameters and outputHint, leaving gaps for the agent.

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 clearly states the action ('Get file structure and document tree'), specifies the resource ('the open Figma file'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by highlighting its read-only nature and the use of fileKey/figmaUrl for multi-file scenarios.

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?

Provides guidance on when to use fileKey vs figmaUrl ('when multiple plugins are connected') and notes default values. However, it does not explicitly advise against using this tool in other contexts or mention alternatives.

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