figma_get_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden for behavioral disclosure. It discloses the default depth behavior and that it returns a tree, but it does not mention authentication requirements, whether it is a read-only operation, or any response characteristics. This is acceptable for a 'get' tool but not comprehensive.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every phrase contributes meaning: the default depth, the option for deeper traversal, and the sibling alternative. No wasted words.

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?

The description covers the core purpose and depth parameter, but the presence of a nodeId parameter is unexplained, creating ambiguity about whether this tool can already target subtrees. There is no output schema, so the return format ('tree') is described only at a high level. Adequate for a simple get operation but with notable gaps.

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 only 33% (only depth is described). The description adds some context for depth but mostly restates schema information. It does not explain the nodeId parameter, which is critical given the tool's relationship to figma_get_node, nor does it clarify fileKey beyond its name. The description fails to compensate for the sparse schema.

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 tool retrieves a file document tree, with a specific default depth. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling figma_get_node by directing users there for specific subtrees, making its scope unambiguous.

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?

Provides clear guidance on depth usage ('Defaults to depth=2... Set higher depth') and explicitly names an alternative (figma_get_node) for subtree traversal. It stops short of saying when not to use this tool under other conditions, but the coverage is strong.

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