Get Figma Comments (unsupported)

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

The description transparently discloses that the tool is a stub, that the parameter is ignored, and that no plugin-based equivalent exists. This goes far beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint) by explaining the underlying reason and expected behavior, which is crucial for an agent to avoid invoking it expecting results.

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 two sentences, immediately starts with 'Stub', and packs essential information without any fluff. Every word contributes value, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 stub tool with one parameter, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the description is fully complete. It covers the tool's unavailability, the cause, and the consequence, leaving no ambiguity about what to expect.

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?

Although the schema description already covers the 'ignored' nature of fileKey at 100% coverage, the tool description adds rationale by explaining that the REST API is disabled. This gives the agent a deeper understanding of why the parameter is ignored, slightly elevating it above the schema-only baseline.

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 explicitly states that this is a stub for reading Figma comments and that the REST API is disabled, making it clear the tool does not actually retrieve comments. It identifies the resource (Figma comments) and the tool's non-functional role, distinguishing it from working siblings like get_document_info.

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 that the tool should not be used for actually getting comments because the required REST API is disabled, but it does not explicitly say 'when to use' or suggest alternatives like using the REST API outside this build. The guidance is clear enough to avoid false expectations, but no direct comparison to sibling tools is provided.

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