figma_diagnose

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and largely meets it: it discloses that the tool is a read-only-style diagnostic, what categories of state it inspects (plugin connection, file, token), and that output is plain language with optional raw state. It does not state whether the check can mutate anything (e.g., trigger a reconnect) or comment on cost/latency.

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?

Three tight sentences with the identity and purpose front-loaded. There is mild overlap between 'when something seems wrong' and the later 'token expired / plugin disconnected' trigger list, but no sentence is wasted.

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-required-parameter diagnostic with no output schema, the description supplies enough: what it checks, that results are human-readable, and that it can attribute errors to the wrong MCP server. The only missing piece is a hint about the shape of the report or what a failing result implies for next steps.

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 single parameter 'verbose' is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), including its effect on output shape. The description never mentions it, so it adds no meaning beyond structured data. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does all the work.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: a 'Designer-readable health check' that self-identifies the server and reports plugin connection / file / token status. It also carves out a niche by disambiguating errors from other Figma-related MCP servers. It stops short of naming the closest sibling (figma_get_status), so the distinction an agent needs most is only implied.

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?

Gives explicit trigger conditions: 'Use this when something seems wrong' and 'first step when a user reports a token expired or plugin disconnected issue'. That is strong positive routing. There is no when-not guidance or named alternative (e.g., use figma_get_status for a plain status read), which keeps it from a 5.

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