figma_get_annotations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic retrieval action and scope, but does not disclose return format, pagination, potential errors, or whether annotations include metadata or comments. This is minimal transparency for a read operation.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that wastes no words. It clearly communicates the tool's purpose and scope without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It explains the primary use case and parameter semantics, but lacks details on return value structure, error behavior, or edge cases. For a retrieval tool with no output schema, the description should provide more information about what the caller receives.

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?

The input schema has one optional parameter, nodeId, with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates by explaining that annotations can be retrieved for a specific node or, by omitting nodeId, the whole document. This adds meaningful context about the parameter's optionality and effect, though it does not specify the expected ID format.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('annotations'), and specifies the scope ('on a node or the whole document'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like figma_set_annotation, which performs the opposite operation. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from figma_get_comments, which could be a similar retrieval function.

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?

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies use for retrieving annotations, but does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or when to prefer figma_get_comments or figma_set_annotation. The scope statement ('on a node or the whole document') gives some context, but no direct comparison to siblings.

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