Get design host capabilities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only says 'Return' without disclosing whether the operation is side-effect free, what 'active' means, whether host can be omitted, or how errors are handled.

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 one front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Every word contributes to identifying the operation.

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 simple one-parameter query, the description is adequate but minimal: it names the return concept but not its shape or granularity, and without an output schema an agent cannot predict exactly what the response looks like. The lack of annotations and usage guidance also leaves some context missing.

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 single 'host' parameter is documented only by its enum values, and the description's 'for a design host' connects the parameter to the tool's purpose. It does not explain what happens when host is omitted, but the enum makes valid invocation clear.

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 action ('Return') and resource ('active plugin capabilities for a design host'), which separates it from sibling list/get/export tools. 'Capabilities' remains somewhat abstract and there is no explicit contrast with sibling getters, so it stops short of a 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?

The intended use is implied: call this when you need the active plugin capabilities of a Figma or XD host. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over related context getters or whether it should be called before other tools.

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