get_page_tree

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses depth parameter effects, potential slowness at high depths, and return structure. For a read-only tree retrieval tool, this is 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 sentences, no filler. Purpose is front-loaded. Every sentence adds value: purpose, prereq+output, depth guidance.

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 no output schema, description explains return structure (array of pages with id/name/type/children) and integration with other tools. For a simple tool with one parameter, this is fully complete.

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?

Only one parameter (depth) with 100% schema coverage. Description adds value beyond schema by explaining depth levels (1=pages only, 2=top-level frames, 3+=component internals) and performance impact. Provides practical guidance.

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?

Description clearly states 'Get the hierarchical node tree of the current Figma file' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like capture_screenshot and analyze_design by specifying it returns node 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?

Includes prereq (bridge + plugin connected) and mentions that IDs feed capture_screenshot and analyze_design, indicating integration. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives.

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