figma_get_context

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one genuine behavioral trait: 'Не требует сессии' (no session required), which tells the agent this call is safe to make before authentication. It says nothing else about side effects, failure modes when the bridge is disconnected, or whether the call is read-only, which matters for a bridge-facing tool.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler, and the session-free property is front-loaded. The terseness crosses into under-specification, however: the sentences are so compressed that key meaning ('bridge', 'available document') is left for the agent to interpret.

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?

An output schema exists and the tool takes no parameters, so return-value detail is rightly omitted. The remaining gap is conceptual: the description never defines what the bridge is, why the document might be unavailable, or whether this should be called first in a workflow, which an agent needs in order to sequence it against the nine siblings.

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 and the baseline of 4 applies. The empty schema with additionalProperties=false is fully self-explanatory.

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 names the resource ('состояние моста и доступного документа' – bridge state and available document) but uses a noun phrase with no verb, so what the tool actually does (report/return) is inferred rather than stated. It also does nothing to separate it from siblings like figma_get_tree or figma_get_nodes, which also surface document state.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named, even though nine sibling tools exist and several overlap on retrieving document information. An agent must guess whether this is a prerequisite/discovery call or an optional status check.

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