figma_get_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It signals a read-only operation via 'GET /v1/files/:key' and warns that payloads can be large enough to warrant depth/ids. It does not mention auth requirements, error behavior, or return structure, but for a straightforward read call this is sufficient.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core action and endpoint are front-loaded, and the second sentence provides a practical tip that earns its place.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description could say more about the returned document structure or which parameter is primary when all parameters are optional. However, the schema documents all parameters well, and the description conveys the core operation and the key payload-reduction technique, so it is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 description coverage is 100%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds value by explaining that 'depth/ids' can shrink the payload, which is not explicitly stated in the input schema and helps an agent understand how to control response size.

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 ('Gets') and the resource ('the Figma document'), and even includes the exact endpoint. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like figma_get_metadata or figma_get_screenshot, but the document scope is reasonably distinct without needing further differentiation.

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 choose this tool over alternatives such as figma_get_metadata or figma_get_design_context. The only instruction, 'Use depth/ids to shrink the payload,' is about parameter usage rather than tool selection, so an agent gets no routing or exclusion criteria.

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