figma_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the payload contents (document, plugin version, bridge status), so an agent knows what to expect back. However, it says nothing about what happens when no Figma document is connected — whether it errors, returns a null, or reports a degraded state — which is the key behavioral question for a health-check tool. Adequate but incomplete.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler: the first defines what is inspected, the second front-loads the call-timing advice. Nothing could be removed without losing 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 covers what it reports and when to call it, which is what an agent needs to select and invoke it correctly. The only meaningful gap is unstated behavior in the disconnected/failure case.

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, which is the baseline-4 case; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The description correctly implies a no-argument call, consistent with the empty schema.

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 (查看/view) and three concrete resources: the connected Figma document, the plugin version, and the bridge status. That makes it clearly a diagnostic/status tool, distinguishable from action-oriented siblings like use_figma or create_session. It stops short of naming a specific sibling it should be preferred over, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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?

It gives two explicit trigger conditions: on first use, and after an operation fails ('第一次使用、或操作失败后先调这个'). That is more concrete than most tools offer. There is no when-not guidance and no alternative tool is named, so it falls short of the top score.

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