ping_figma

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Ping' implies a harmless check, and 'verify live canvas communication' suggests a response, but the description does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, non-destructive, or what happens if the plugin is disconnected. It is not misleading, but it leaves some behavior unstated.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and purpose. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 ping tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides enough information for an agent to understand its function and invoke it correctly. Nothing essential is missing.

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% for the single optional parameter, which is already documented as 'Optional message to echo back'. The tool description adds no further parameter context, but since the schema fully covers it, the baseline score of 3 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 ('Ping'), a clear resource ('connected Figma companion plugin'), and a specific purpose ('verify live canvas communication'). It is easily distinguishable from all sibling tools, none of which are ping-like operations.

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 a use case (verifying connectivity) but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor any conditions under which it should not be used. Since no sibling tool serves this exact purpose, the lack of explicit guidance is minor but still present.

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