figma_get_page_structure

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states that the operation is a read and that it defaults to the current page. It does not disclose behavior regarding depth limits, node limits, or the structure/shape of the returned data.

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 extremely concise, only two short sentences, and the primary verb/resource is front-loaded. Every word earns its place, though the conciseness comes at the expense of necessary detail.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should explain more about expected return values and parameter effects, but it does not. Although the default current-page behavior is mentioned, the tool is not complete enough for an agent to understand the full impact of the other parameters or interpret the result.

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 25% (only pageId has a description), but the tool description adds no additional meaning for depth, maxNodes, or maxChildren. It merely reinforces the pageId default, leaving the other three parameters without useful clarification.

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 ('Read') and the resource ('top-level nodes on a Figma page'), making it specific and distinguishable from sibling tools like figma_get_node or figma_get_selection. The addition 'Defaults to the current page' further clarifies scope.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as figma_get_selection or figma_get_node. The only contextual hint is that it defaults to the current page, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use advice.

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