figma_get_annotations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the load — and it does useful work: it discloses the Desktop Bridge plugin prerequisite/availability requirement and describes the return content (notes text/markdown, pinned fills/width/fontSize, categories) in the absence of an output schema. Missing: explicit read-only confirmation and pagination/return-shape notes.

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?

Front-loads the core action, then layers definition, use cases, and the include_children hint. Four sentences, each contributing something; the middle list of annotation contents is dense but earns its place given no output schema.

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 read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers return content, the child-traversal option, and the plugin prerequisite. Depth behavior is left to the schema, which fully documents it, so nothing critical is missing.

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 all three parameters are already documented, setting the baseline at 3. The description adds only marginal meaning for include_children ('useful for full component documentation') and says nothing about the depth parameter's traversal semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Read annotations from a Figma node') and then defines what annotations actually are — designer-authored specs including notes, pinned properties, and category labels. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling figma_set_annotations (write) and figma_get_annotation_categories (categories only).

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?

Explicitly names the use cases ('discover animation timings, interaction specs, accessibility requirements') and explains when to set include_children=true for full component documentation. It does not name alternative tools or exclusions, so it stops short of the top score.

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