get_document

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds that children are returned recursively and that geometry, rotation, opacity, cornerRadius, and fills are enriched, which is useful. However, it does not disclose potential limitations (e.g., handling of very large trees, what happens if no page is active) or output structure details.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's action, scope, and output details. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 no output schema, the description lists the enriched fields (base geometry, rotation, opacity, cornerRadius, fills), giving a good sense of the output. It is reasonably complete for a read-only tree retrieval tool, though it could mention error conditions or the exact shape of the returned tree.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description clarifies that the tool operates on the 'active Figma page', which provides meaningful implicit context about what is being returned without needing schema parameters.

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 tool returns the full recursive node tree of the active Figma page, with specific enrichment fields. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_node (single node) and get_nodes_info (specific nodes) by explicitly targeting the entire tree.

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?

The description implies when to use this tool: when you need the complete page tree rather than specific nodes. It gives clear context but does not explicitly name alternatives or include when-not-to-use instructions, so it falls short of full guidance.

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