figma_get_slide_grid

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get' implies a read, but nothing states whether it is side-effect free, what a grid cell contains (slide IDs, positions, empty slots), or how the grid relates to slide order.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though it spends words on '2D' and 'rows and columns' without adding concrete detail about the payload.

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 tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but leaves the return shape opaque — an agent cannot tell what a 'grid layout' entry contains or whether it maps to slide identifiers it can use downstream.

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 takes zero parameters, so the schema and description are trivially complete on that axis. Baseline 4 applies; nothing about parameters needs explaining.

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 and resource ('Get the 2D slide grid layout') plus the shape of the data (slides organized in rows and columns). An agent can tell this apart from figma_list_slides at a conceptual level, though the sibling is never named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the description suggests this is the read path for spatial/row-column arrangement, which contrasts with figma_list_slides only by inference. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative.

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