figma_get_comments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful scope detail that it returns ALL comments, implying no filtering or pagination, but says nothing about authentication via personal_access_token or the response shape.

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?

A single tight sentence with no filler, and the resource is front-loaded. It is efficient but under-informative rather than verbose.

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?

For a simple read tool the annotations cover safety, but with two parameters at 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description should at least explain file_key and personal_access_token. It leaves authentication and return-value expectations entirely unaddressed.

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 both parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description only implies that a Figma file identifier is needed via 'on a Figma file'; it does not explain the file_key format, whether personal_access_token is required or optional, or how authentication works.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Get all comments on a Figma file'), making the operation immediately recognizable and easily differentiable from figma_post_comment. It does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling tool, which keeps it short of a 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus figma_get_file, figma_get_node, or figma_post_comment, and no mention of required permissions or authentication despite a personal_access_token parameter. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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