get_selection

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. 'Inspect' and 'currently selected' imply a non-mutating, state-dependent read, which is useful, but it does not explain behavior when no selection exists or whether an active Figma canvas is required.

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 a single focused sentence with no filler or redundancy. It front-loads the verb and resource efficiently.

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 0-parameter read tool, the description is mostly adequate, but without an output schema it does not state the return shape or the empty-selection case. An agent would likely call it correctly but may not know exactly what to expect back.

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 has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The rubric's baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, and the description adds no confusing parameter claims.

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 names a specific operation ('Inspect') on a specific resource ('currently selected elements on the Figma canvas'). It is unambiguous about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like inspect_node or get_design_context.

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 gives no guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. It only states what it does, leaving selection vs. inspect_node/get_design_context to inference.

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