Get the current selection

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, destructiveHint false, and openWorldHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it reads the live selection ('right now'), but does not cover empty-selection behavior, response shape, or pagination.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the resource and then the primary use case; no redundant restatement of the title or schema.

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 read-only selection getter with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description supplies the purpose and primary workflow. It leaves return shape and empty-selection handling unstated, but with no output schema this is a minor gap.

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 100%, so depth, session, and includeGeometry are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, matching the baseline 3.

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?

Names the exact resource and temporal scope ('nodes the user has selected in Figma right now') and frames it as the entry point for code generation. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling getters like figma_get_node or figma_get_design_context, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

Provides a concrete usage scenario ('usual entry point for "make this into code"') but does not state when not to use it or name alternatives among the many sibling getters.

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