figma_get_operation

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one genuine non-obvious behavioral trait — that reading does not trigger re-execution, i.e. this is a side-effect-free lookup — but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or what happens when the operation is unknown or the scope is stale.

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 short sentence with the key qualifier front-loaded and no wasted words. It is terse rather than padded, though the brevity leaves the specification gaps that other dimensions penalize.

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, so return values need not be described, but the tool takes a nested scope object (sessionId + connectionGeneration) with 0% schema coverage and has no annotations. For a tool whose semantics hinge on session/generation scoping, the description omits the information an agent needs to supply those parameters correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the schema contains a nested scope object with a UUID-formatted operationId and a connectionGeneration integer, none of which the description explains. The description never references operationId or scope, so it adds no meaning beyond the raw field names for a parameter surface that is entirely undocumented.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('reading the known state of an operation') and adds a distinguishing property, 'without re-executing it', which separates it from execution-oriented siblings such as figma_apply_batch. It does not name any sibling explicitly, but the operation-state scope is clear enough to select it over figma_get_tree or figma_get_nodes.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative; the phrase 'without re-executing' only implicitly signals that this is the read path for an already-known operation. An agent must infer the polling/verification use case and get no hint about relationships to figma_cancel_operation.

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