get_annotations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only restates the basic purpose and does not disclose return format, side effects (though likely read-only), permission requirements, or how the 'current document' mode works. The ambiguity about 'current document or specific node' is not resolved by the schema, which marks nodeId as required.

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 of 12 words, concise and front-loaded with the action. However, the phrase 'current document or specific node' is slightly ambiguous, preventing a perfect score.

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 and no annotations, the description should explain more about expected output and usage nuances. It fails to clarify how to request document-wide annotations when nodeId is required, and does not mention return structure or includeCategories behavior, leaving the tool under-specified.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some context by suggesting nodeId can target either the document or a specific node, but this is vague and slightly inconsistent with the required nodeId. It does not clarify includeCategories beyond the 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'annotations', and identifies the scope 'in the current document or specific node'. This distinguishes it from sibling write tools like set_annotation and set_multiple_annotations, and from get_figma_comments which targets comments.

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 by stating the tool retrieves annotations for a document or node, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool. It lacks guidance on choosing between get_annotations and get_figma_comments, or when to use the 'current document' mode given nodeId is required.

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