figma_get_animations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose the return contract: easing returns a CSS cubic-bezier equivalent where one exists, and token bindings surface as EASING/TIMING variable references. It also flags an environment prerequisite and beta status, which materially affects whether a call succeeds; it does not say what happens when the Motion API is unavailable or how limit truncation is signalled.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and the three sentences cover content, parameter behavior, and prerequisites without padding. The opening sentence is heavy with stacked parentheticals, which costs a bit of scannability but every sentence still earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe returns and it does so concretely (styles with entries, keyframe tracks, timelines, playhead, CSS easing, token refs). Combined with the stated Desktop Bridge/Motion API requirement, an agent has enough to decide and call, with only truncation/pagination behavior left implicit.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters, and the description mostly restates includeDescendants ("also list animated layers inside it") in nearly the same words as the schema. limit, nodeId and fileKey get no added meaning from the description, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

"Read a node's Motion animations" gives a specific verb and resource, then enumerates exactly what is returned (applied styles, keyframe tracks, timelines, playhead). This cleanly separates it from the write-side siblings figma_apply_animation, figma_remove_animation, figma_export_animation and figma_manage_animation_styles without needing the schema.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb "Read"; the description never says when to reach for this versus figma_export_animation or figma_get_slide_transition, and offers no exclusions. It does add a real precondition (Desktop Bridge + Figma Desktop with the Motion API beta), which narrows the callable context but is not routing guidance.

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