get_metadata

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes output format and what is returned (id, name, type, bounds) and notes it's lightweight. Missing details on authentication, rate limits, or potential side effects, which are important for a file access tool.

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 well-structured sentences. First sentence delivers core purpose and return values; second specifies output formats. 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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately covers the idea of a lightweight tree for orientation. Could benefit from clarifying whether the tree includes all children or just immediate, and the format of bounds, but sufficient for basic use.

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 80% (4 of 5 parameters documented). The description adds that output can be XML or JSON and that node-id in URL is honored, but does not significantly enhance understanding of parameters beyond the 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?

Clearly states it returns a lightweight tree of Figma file/node with id, name, type, bounds for orientation, distinguishing it from a deep fetch. The verb 'get' and resource 'metadata' are clear, and the scope is specific.

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?

Explicitly mentions 'for orientation before a deep fetch', giving context for when to use. However, does not explicitly state when not to use or compare directly with sibling tools like 'get_design_context'.

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