get_figma_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool checks connection status and retrieves metadata, which implies a read-only operation. However, it doesn't describe what 'active document metadata' includes, whether it can fail (e.g., if plugin not connected), or any side effects. It's adequate but not rich.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the primary purpose ('Check whether... connected') and secondary purpose ('get active document metadata'). No wasted words.

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 status-check tool, the description is mostly complete. However, it doesn't specify what the output looks like (no output schema) or what 'active document metadata' contains. Given the tool's simplicity, this is a minor gap, but the lack of output details and failure behavior keeps it from being a 4.

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 the schema is trivially complete. The description adds meaning by explaining what the tool does with no inputs. Baseline 4 for 0 params is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('Figma Desktop companion plugin connection status') plus 'active document metadata'. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like ping_figma (which likely just pings) and get_document_info (which likely gets document info), though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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 usage: check this tool when you need to know if the Figma Desktop companion plugin is connected and to get active document metadata. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this over ping_figma or get_document_info, but the context is reasonably clear given the sibling names.

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