Figma whoami

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the key behavioral limitation—that the response excludes team_id—which is useful context an agent would not infer from annotations alone. It doesn't detail output shape, but for a trivial identity call that's acceptable.

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?

One tight sentence (plus a caveat) that front-loads the purpose and immediately adds the team_id limitation. Every word earns its place; no 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 no-param, read-only identity tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns (the owning user) and its main limitation (no team_id). An agent can call it correctly without further context. Slight deduction for not mentioning the response fields explicitly, but it's not critical for usage.

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?

Tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies there are no configurable inputs; it only clarifies the token context. Nothing further is needed.

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?

States a specific verb-resource ('GET /v1/me') and clarifies it returns the user owning the access token. It also distinguishes itself from local variants by noting it does not include team_id, and names list_projects as the sibling for that need – making the tool's unique purpose unmistakable.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use this tool (to identify the current user) and when not to (when team_id is needed), pointing to list_projects and the FIGMA_TEAM_ID env var as alternatives. This is clear, actionable routing with no ambiguity.

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