Get Figma document

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the return type (serialized pages and top-level nodes) and implies a read operation, but does not elaborate on behavioral aspects such as whether the document must be open, the format of serialization, potential size limits, or performance implications. The information is minimal but not misleading.

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 efficiently communicates the tool's core functionality without extraneous information. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Return' and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 the absence of an output schema and the presence of many sibling tools, the description could be more complete. It does not explain what 'serialized' means, whether it returns all pages, or how it relates to get_current_page and get_node. While adequate for a simple read operation, it leaves some ambiguity about the exact scope of data returned.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (no parameters to document). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but none is needed. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool.

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 tool returns 'serialized pages and top-level nodes' from the 'open Figma document'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_current_page (which returns only the current page), get_node (single node), and get_selection (selected nodes), making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description implies usage when the full document structure is needed, but it does not explicitly provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of when not to use it or favorable scenarios, leaving the agent to infer from context.

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