figma_get_file_at_version

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does deliver the required auth scope (file_content:read) plus the read-only implication of 'Fetch'/'snapshot'. It also warns about payload cost and how to reduce it. It doesn't describe the response shape or any rate limits, but for a read-only fetch the disclosed scope and payload economics cover the main risks.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then differentiation, then the discovery route, then cost guidance. Nothing is padded and the parentheticals are functional rather than noise.

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-only snapshot tool with full schema coverage, the definition covers purpose, discovery path, auth scope, and payload control. The only gap is return-value behavior, which is gestured at via 'same shape as figma_get_file_data' but never spelled out despite there being no output schema.

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 all four parameters are already documented, making 3 the baseline. The description reinforces the depth/node_ids payload trade-off but adds no syntax, defaults, or format detail beyond what the schema states.

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 and resource ('Fetch a Figma file (or specific nodes) as it existed at a past version_id') with explicit scope. It also disambiguates from the closest sibling by saying it is 'same shape as figma_get_file_data but bound to a historical version', so an agent can separate the two without opening either 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?

Gives explicit routing to figma_get_file_versions for obtaining version IDs and practical guidance to combine depth and node_ids to keep payloads small. The implied counterpart (use figma_get_file_data for current state) is clear but never stated as an exclusion, so it falls short of a full when/when-not statement.

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