unified_active_backend

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

There are no annotations to rely on, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral transparency. It only states the return action without disclosing potential side effects, error handling, or whether the tool is read-only. This minimal disclosure leaves ambiguity about edge cases.

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, concise sentence that conveys the essential information without superfluous content. It is well-structured and directly to the point.

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 simplicity of the tool and the absence of parameters or output schema, the description is largely complete. However, it does not clarify what constitutes 'active' or 'detected', which might be relevant for a user to fully understand the tool's behavior in ambiguous scenarios.

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 accepts no parameters, so there is nothing to explain. The description correctly does not mention any inputs, and the schema confirms zero parameters, making this dimension trivially satisfied.

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 explicitly states that the tool returns the currently active detected Figma backend, which is a clear and specific purpose. It distinguishes this tool from potential alternatives by focusing on the active backend only.

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?

No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (unified_status, unified_backends, unified_probe_backend), nor does it mention any conditions or prerequisites.

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