get_cached_figma_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It correctly signals a read-only cached operation and enumerates return fields, but it does not disclose cache semantics such as freshness, what happens on a cache miss, or whether it ever fetches live data from Figma.

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 three concise sentences: what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it. Every sentence earns its place, and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the description covers purpose, return fields, and usage guidance. The lack of an output schema or annotations leaves exact return shape and cache behavior unspecified, but the provided information is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema already fully documents the only parameter, file_id, with URL format examples. The description adds file-level context but no additional parameter-level semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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 and resource ('Get cached Figma file metadata and top-level frames') and lists the concrete return items: file name, version, last modified date, and main frames. This clearly distinguishes the tool from the sibling node/frame search tools by focusing on file-level overview.

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 explicitly says 'Use this tool first to understand the structure of a Figma file', giving clear when-to-use guidance. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the file-level overview purpose is enough for an agent to route correctly.

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