figma_auth_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly labels the tool as LOCAL, uses the non-destructive verb "Inspects," and identifies that it reads active access tokens and secure storage. This gives agents a good sense of read-only, local behavior, though it does not explicitly state "no side effects" or discuss permission implications beyond mentioning secure storage.

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 compact and well-structured: a headline "LOCAL TOOL — Checks current Figma authentication status," followed by a concise "Do what" line and an explicit "Expected output" JSON shape. Every sentence adds value, no fluff, and key information is front-loaded.

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, read-only status tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It enumerates all expected output fields (authenticated, user, email, expires_at, is_expired, storage_path), making the return value fully understandable without an output schema. No prerequisites or edge-case behavior seems missing for correct invocation.

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 and the schema is fully empty (100% coverage, no required properties). The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on output rather than inventing parameter details. No compensation is needed.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: "Checks current Figma authentication status," then elaborates with details about inspecting access tokens, user seat, expiry time, and storage location. This clearly conveys the tool's purpose, but it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like whoami, which may also return user/email information.

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 does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of using it before Figma API calls or choosing it over whoami for user identity. The intended context is only implied by the tool's name and purpose, giving no explicit guidance or exclusion criteria.

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