figma_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, what format the status returns, whether it requires authentication, or any side effects. The description only names the resource without detailing 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?

The description is a single short sentence that immediately conveys the core resource. However, it includes a parenthetical about Plumb that could be moved to usage context, slightly reducing conciseness. Overall, it is front-loaded and efficient.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is the sole provider of functional details. It fails to explain what the status output looks like (e.g., a boolean, string, or object) or how to interpret it. For a simple no-argument tool, more completeness is expected to avoid ambiguity.

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, so the input schema provides full coverage. According to guidelines, the baseline is 4. The description does not add parameter information (as none exist), but it does give context about the operation's nature.

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 it returns 'Bridge/pairing status' for a custom Figma MCP, which indicates the tool's purpose. It distinguishes itself from a related tool (Plumb) but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like figma_node or figma_design, though their functions are intuitively different.

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. The mention of Plumb offers some context but does not help an agent decide between figma_status and its siblings, nor does it specify prerequisites or use cases.

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