figma_get_comments

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the default sort order, that compact is the default and what fields it trims, that resolved threads are hidden by default, and that include_nested costs an extra REST call. It omits permission/auth requirements and rate-limit behavior, so it is not fully complete.

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-loaded with the resource and return shape, then narrowing options, then pagination rationale. The second sentence is dense and long, but every clause carries operational information rather than filler.

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 10-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is thorough: it describes the return structure (including compact-mode fields like author handle, timestamps, pinned node, reaction counts), default ordering, and its own defaults for resolved threads. Nothing required to call it correctly 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 the baseline is 3; the description still adds value by explaining node_id includes comments pinned to nested nodes and that thread_id bypasses the resolved filter. It also surfaces why include_resolved and format='full' matter, rather than just restating the enum.

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 ('Get comment threads on a Figma file') and immediately describes the returned entity shape (root comment + replies, sorted by latest activity). It is clearly distinct from the write-side siblings figma_post_comment and figma_delete_comment.

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?

Gives concrete narrowing strategies (node_id, thread_id, since), pagination guidance with a rationale ('files often have hundreds of comments'), and when to use include_resolved and format='full'. It does not name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, keeping it just below a 5.

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