figma_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral scope beyond annotations by naming the reported state: connection status, active file/page, selection, and code execution availability. It does not contradict the annotations.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with a colon that sets the scope. Every element—connection, file/page, selection, code-execution availability—earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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-only status tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it names the key state dimensions an agent would need to decide about calling the tool. It could go slightly further by noting what happens when the bridge is disconnected, but this is a minor 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 input schema is empty with 100% coverage, so there are no parameters to explain. The description correctly focuses on the tool's informational output rather than param semantics, which earns the baseline for zero-parameter tools.

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 identifies a status-reporting tool: 'Bridge + plugin health' and enumerates the exact state it returns (connection, open file/page, current selection, dynamic code availability). It is distinct from siblings like figma_eval and figma_metadata, though it does not explicitly name or contrast them.

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 implies a health-check use case: an agent would call this to verify plugin connectivity and dynamic code execution availability before taking actions such as figma_eval. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over alternatives or provides exclusions.

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