figma_get_comments

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the tool's basic function without mentioning read-only nature, pagination, the scope of comments (e.g., resolved/unresolved), or any response details. It adds no behavioral traits beyond what the tool name already implies.

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, easily parseable sentence, making it concise. However, it is so minimal that it borders on under-specification, lacking important context that could be added without much length. It is not optimally structured for helping an agent select the tool.

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 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is far too sparse. It does not clarify any nuances such as what the response contains, whether comments are threaded or flat, or how it relates to figma_get_annotations. The absence of an output schema makes this incompleteness more significant.

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 contains one parameter (fileKey) with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The phrase 'on a file' gives minimal inference that fileKey identifies the target file, but it does not explain the format, source, or validation of the key. The description fails to adequately compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 resource (comments on a file), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like figma_get_annotations or figma_post_comment, so it misses the top score.

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 usage is implied by the description—use this when you need comments on a file—but there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over alternatives like figma_get_annotations or figma_post_comment. No when-not-to-use or alternative mentions are provided.

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