figma_get_file_metadata

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavior. It indicates a read operation ('Read'), implying non-destructiveness, and notes the dependency on the current file in Figma Desktop. However, it does not describe failure modes (e.g., no file open) or what metadata specifically is returned.

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 is front-loaded with the action 'Read metadata' and includes the essential context. There is no wasted wording.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema, read-only tool, the description gives the essential purpose and context. It is vague about what 'metadata' encompasses, but given the low complexity and sibling tools covering specific aspects, it is reasonably complete.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter information needed. The description adds contextual meaning about the implicit input (the current file), but since the schema is empty, the description is sufficient and the baseline of 4 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and identifies the resource ('metadata for the Figma file currently open in Figma Desktop'), which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools focusing on page structure, selection, nodes, or screenshots.

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 implies the tool is for retrieving metadata about the current file but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it over alternatives or when not to use it. The context of 'currently open in Figma Desktop' gives some situational clarity, but sibling comparisons are absent.

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