figma_selection

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'Read' aligns with safety. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., what happens if no selection exists, whether the ID is returned in a specific format, or if fileKey is required). With annotations covering the safety profile, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 extremely concise—one short sentence—and contains no wasted words. However, it lacks structure (e.g., no bullet points, no front-loading of key actions). It earns a 4 for being lean but not perfectly structured.

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?

Given the tool has one optional parameter, no output schema, and many siblings, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., a selection ID string, an object, or nothing), how to use the returned ID, error states (e.g., no selection), or the role of the fileKey parameter beyond the schema. The agent would need to guess the return format and behavior.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter fileKey, and the schema already describes it as 'Target connected file: bare key or Figma URL.' The description does not add any further meaning or usage details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is correct.

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 clearly states the tool reads the current Figma selection and reuses its ID. The verb 'read' and resource 'current Figma selection' are specific. However, 'reuse its id' is vague and does not distinguish from siblings like figma_inspect or figma_reference, which might also deal with selection data.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as figma_inspect, figma_reference, or figma_spec. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or context (e.g., 'use this to get the selection ID for use in other figma_* tools').

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