figma_get_file_versions

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 states a read action ('Get') but does not reveal what the version history contains (e.g., timestamps, authors, pagination), any permissions required, or whether the result is a summary or full details. This is minimal and lacks context beyond the basic 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 succinct sentence, front-loaded with the main action and resource. There is zero wasted wording, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not specify the return format, file scope (e.g., current file vs. any file), or any limitations. The complexity of version history retrieval (e.g., pagination, ordering) is not addressed, leaving the agent with insufficient information to fully leverage the tool.

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 schema has one parameter (fileKey) with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no additional meaning. While 'fileKey' is semantically self-evident as a file identifier, the description does not explain how to obtain it or its format. Given the low coverage, the description fails to compensate, though the parameter name helps slightly.

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 a specific action ('Get') and resource ('version history of a file'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like figma_get_file or figma_get_comments. It is unambiguous in intent, though it could be more explicit about the file context or what 'version history' encompasses.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, such as needing a fileKey from another tool, or common use cases, nor any exclusions. The description relies solely on the name to imply usage.

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