Figma bridge status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: it discloses that the bridge answers this even when no plugin is connected, that the plugin window shows its own token/fingerprint, and enumerates the return fields (auth, process, videoExport, skills). This goes beyond what annotations provide, though it stops short of e.g. rate limits or staleness caveats.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, but the middle clause is a very long enumerated run-on listing every status field, which is hard to parse and borders on over-specification. The critical 'call this first' guidance is buried at the end rather than near the top.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description justifiably describes the returned fields (connections, skills, process, auth, videoExport) and the next-step hint. Combined with the annotations, an agent has enough to invoke and interpret it, though the field list is dense rather than organized.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately does not invent parameters and instead spends its budget on the return-shape terms the agent needs to interpret.

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?

States a specific diagnostic resource (bridge and plugin connection status) and enumerates the exact fields returned, making it clearly distinct from every sibling figma_ operation tool. An agent can tell this is the status/health tool without opening the schema.

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 says 'Call this first, and whenever another figma_ tool returns NO_SESSION, PORT_IN_USE, or UNSUPPORTED naming an editor.' Both the proactive and reactive triggers are named, and the specific error codes make the routing unambiguous.

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