read_my_design

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

Since 'Get' indicates a read-only operation, the basic behavior is clear, and there is no annotation contradiction. But with no annotations and no output schema, the description does not disclose edge cases such as behavior with an empty selection, whether children are included, or what 'all node details' concretely covers.

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 communicates the tool's purpose without wasted words. 'Including all node details' is slightly redundant with 'detailed information,' but the overall structure is clean and immediately actionable.

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 tool, the description is adequate for a basic invocation and clearly identifies the subject as the current selection. However, it leaves sibling-tool differentiation unaddressed and does not describe the return shape or selection edge cases, so it is not fully complete.

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 and an empty input schema, so the description cannot add parameter-level meaning. A baseline of 4 is appropriate because parameter semantics are irrelevant here.

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 the action ('Get') and the resource ('current selection in Figma'), with 'including all node details' signaling a comprehensive read. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from similar sibling tools like get_selection or get_node_info, so it falls 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 description implies the tool should be used when an agent needs detailed information about the current selection. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over get_selection, get_node_info, or get_nodes_info, and it names no alternatives or exclusions.

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