figma_get_node_tree

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not explain what happens on invalid nodeId, whether the tree is flat or nested, or any performance implications. The existence of maxDepth and includeInvisible parameters is not mentioned in the description, leaving the agent unaware of these behavioral aspects.

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 with 13 words, front-loading the action. It is concise but could be slightly more informative without adding significant length. No unnecessary words are present.

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 should explain the return format (e.g., nested JSON structure). It only mentions 'node tree' without specifics. Additionally, there is no mention of error handling, rate limits, or prerequisites. Given the tool has 3 optional parameters, the description is insufficient for complete understanding.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage for parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that nodeId defaults to the current page, but it does not elaborate on maxDepth or includeInvisible beyond what the schema already provides. Thus, it meets the baseline without exceeding it.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'node tree', and specifies the starting point (current page or specific node). It is distinct from sibling tools like figma_get_current_page or figma_get_selection, which are more specific. However, it could be more explicit about what a node tree represents (hierarchical structure).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as figma_get_current_page or figma_get_selection. The description only states what it does, not the context or conditions for use.

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