figma_status

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

Annotations are sparse (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true) and do not explain side effects. The description adds a valuable behavioral guarantee: it does not launch anything, which is safety-relevant for an agent deciding whether to call it. This goes beyond the annotations, though it does not disclose return format or network behavior.

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 redundancy. The core state information is front-loaded, and the clarifying no-launch note is placed immediately after.

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 status tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it names what is reported and clarifies a key side-effect constraint. It could briefly mention what the agent will receive in the response, but the low complexity keeps this from being a major gap.

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 has zero parameters and the schema is an empty object with 100% coverage, so there is nothing the description needs to add. The 0-parameter baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 identifies the resource as 'account, browser and login state', which clearly signals a status-checking tool. It lacks an explicit verb like 'reports' or 'checks', but the follow-up 'Does not launch anything' differentiates it from file-loading and login siblings.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. The note about local .fig paths never needing the browser implies a use context, but the description never says 'use this to verify login state before...' or contrasts it with figma_login or figma_load_file.

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