figma_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by disclosing that the tool 'performs a real plugin round-trip by default' and that REST validation is an opt-in feature. This provides behavioral detail beyond the annotations, though it does not fully describe all side effects.

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: two sentences that front-load the core purpose and then add a key behavioral note. There is no wasted text, and every sentence contributes meaning. This is a model of conciseness.

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 3 optional parameters, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description adequately covers the tool's role and a key behavioral trait. However, it does not describe what the output looks like or how the state information is presented, which could leave the agent uncertain about the return format.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. It mentions 'REST validation is opt-in' which loosely aligns with the validateRest parameter, but the schema already explains each parameter clearly.

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's purpose: 'Show bridge/plugin/file/key state.' This is a specific verb-resource pair that distinguishes it from sibling tools like figma_connect, figma_run, etc. However, it does not elaborate on what aspects of 'state' are shown, leaving some ambiguity about the exact output.

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 implied usage context by noting that it 'performs a real plugin round-trip by default' and that REST validation is opt-in. This suggests when to use it (e.g., for connectivity checks) but does not explicitly state when to use alternatives or exclude scenarios. No comparison to sibling tools is given.

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