figma_get_comments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must reveal behavioral details, but it only restates the endpoint. It does not disclose pagination, whether resolved comments are included, return structure, authentication needs, or any side effects. The GET endpoint hints at a read operation but little else.

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 sentence that packs resource, verb, and endpoint into minimal space. There is no filler or repetition, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 and no annotations, the description should explain what the response contains and how the tool behaves. It does neither, leaving an agent to infer return values, comment ordering, filtering, and pagination.

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%, with both 'url' and 'fileKey' already described in the schema. The tool description adds no further meaning about how these parameters interact or when one should be preferred, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 resource ('File comments') and includes the exact REST endpoint, making the tool's purpose clear. It is distinguishable from sibling Figma tools like figma_get_file or figma_get_metadata, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as figma_get_design_context or figma_get_file. The endpoint implies 'retrieve comments on a file,' but the description does not state use cases, exclusions, or preferred alternatives.

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