Get status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden; 'Report' implies a read-only, side-effect-free call, which covers the safety profile reasonably. However, it says nothing about what happens when the plugin is disconnected (error vs. negative result), whether the check is live or cached, or how long it may take.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the check being performed, with no filler or repetition of the title.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should say what a status report looks like (boolean, connection details, error state). It only states the question being answered, leaving the agent to guess the shape of the result and the disconnected-case behavior.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies.

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 ('Report') and resource ('whether the figma-flow Figma plugin is connected to this server'), so an agent knows exactly what question the tool answers. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling 'ping', which is presumably also a connectivity/health check, leaving ambiguity about which to call.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent would infer you call this to verify the plugin connection before invoking draw/create tools. There is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no routing guidance relative to 'ping' or the other siblings.

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