Get Metadata

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds real behavioral detail beyond them — the XML response format, the 'Currently selected nodes:' prefix when a selection exists in Figma, and the different return shape when nodeId is omitted. It stops short of describing size limits or truncation on very large documents.

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?

Front-loads the most decision-relevant instruction (prefer get_design_context) before any detail, then progressively adds payload contents and edge cases. Every sentence carries distinct information; no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining returns - XML format, field contents, the selection block, and the pages/snapshots fallback - and it does so. Combined with read-only annotations, an agent has everything needed 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: nodeId may be a page id (e.g. 0:1), and omitting it returns the document's pages and saved snapshots rather than just a selection. That last point nuances the schema's simpler 'omit it to use the current selection' wording.

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?

States a specific verb (get) and resource (metadata for a node or page) and enumerates the concrete payload: node IDs, layer types, names, positions, sizes, in XML format. It also names the sibling it should not be confused with (get_design_context), so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

Opens with an explicit routing directive — 'Always prefer to use get_design_context' — naming the alternative and the condition that selects it (structural overview rather than design context). It also covers the fallback case when nodeId is omitted, so both usage paths are defined.

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