get_figma_data

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the call goes through the REST API (network dependency), that nodeId avoids pulling the whole file, that depth limits recursion, and what gets returned ('file (or nodes), plus styles/components/component_sets when no nodeId is given'). Missing are authentication requirements, rate limits, and error-handling behavior, so it is useful but not comprehensive.

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?

Three tightly written sentences. Purpose is front-loaded, then parameter effects, then return values. Every sentence adds distinct information with no redundancy or 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?

No output schema exists, so the description appropriately summarizes return values. It also covers the key behavioral effects of the two optional parameters. It omits auth prerequisites and fileKey format details, but for a simple read-only getter the coverage is largely sufficient.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains nodeId ('fetch only that node') and depth ('limits recursion on file/nodes'), and ties nodeId presence to the return shape. fileKey is not explained, but it is the obvious required identifier; overall the description adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 and resource: 'Get Figma file data via the REST API.' Distinguishes itself from plugin-local siblings by specifying the REST API path, and clarifies optional node-level fetching. Does not name a sibling directly, so 4 rather than 5.

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?

Gives parameter-level guidance: 'Pass nodeId to fetch only that node (avoids pulling the whole file)' and 'depth limits recursion.' This implies when to pass nodeId vs omit it, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance, leaving the agent to infer selection among many getter siblings.

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