figma_get_current_context

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the tool is local, detects an open desktop file, and returns a specific JSON structure. However, it leaves ambiguous whether authentication may be triggered and what happens if the desktop app is not running or no file is open.

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 with labeled sections: 'LOCAL TOOL', 'Do what', and 'Expected output'. The most important instruction, calling this first, is front-loaded, and every sentence contributes useful information.

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 tool with no output schema, the description provides the critical context: when to call it, what it detects, and what JSON it returns. It stops short of covering failure modes or authentication edge cases, but the included instructions array and expected output offer enough guidance for an agent to proceed.

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, so it is already complete; the description does not need to document parameter meaning. The expected-output block mentions fileKey and nodeId, but those are return values, not inputs, so no additional parameter semantics are required.

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 verb and resource: 'Detects which Figma file the user currently has open in Figma desktop app', and lists the returned fields. It also differentiates itself from siblings by explicitly saying to call it first before any other Figma tool when no URL/fileKey is provided.

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 an explicit invocation condition: use this tool first whenever the user has not provided a Figma URL or fileKey. This clearly tells the agent when to use it and implies the reverse condition for skipping it, making the usage boundary unambiguous.

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