figma_get_file_data

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses the key behavioral risk up front: large token consumption. It also gives a mitigation path (start with summary/1). It stops short of describing pagination, output shape, or auth requirements beyond what the schema states about auto-detection, so it's strong but not exhaustive.

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 purpose then the warning, then the alternative, then the recommended starting config. Slight redundancy between the WARNING and the closing recommendation, but every sentence carries actionable information.

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 zero-required-parameter, five-param read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers cost, scope, alternatives, and safe defaults. What's missing is a hint at return shape (node tree fields, ids/names) beyond 'document tree', which an agent might want before committing to a large payload.

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% and each parameter already documents its own values, defaults, and tradeoffs (notably depth max 3 and verbosity enum). The description reinforces the recommended values ('start with verbosity=summary and depth=1') but adds little semantic detail beyond the schema, so this is the baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Get full file structure and document tree') and immediately distinguishes itself from the most likely confusion point, figma_get_component, for component descriptions. An agent can tell what it returns and what it should not be used for without opening 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?

Explicit when-to-use ('Best for understanding file structure or finding component nodeIds'), explicit when-not ('NOT recommended for component descriptions'), and it names the alternative to use instead. It even prescribes a safe starting configuration of verbosity='summary' and depth=1 for initial exploration.

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