read_my_design

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read operation ('Get') but does not mention what happens if nothing is selected, whether errors can occur, or what 'detailed information' includes in terms of return structure. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation safety signals.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. It efficiently communicates the core purpose without wasting words, earning full marks for conciseness.

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 simple read tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description gives the essential context of operating on the current selection. However, 'detailed information' and 'all node details' are vague, and the lack of an output schema means the agent has no idea of the return shape. It is minimally viable but leaves gaps in expectations.

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, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter-level detail. It stays out of the way, making the tool easy to invoke with no arguments.

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 states the action ('Get detailed information') and the resource ('current selection in Figma'), and adds scope ('including all node details'). It is distinguishable from siblings like get_selection (which likely returns only selection IDs) and get_node_info (which targets a specific node), but it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, so it loses a point for not fully differentiating.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_selection or get_node_info. There are no explicit use cases, exclusions, or references to sibling tools, leaving the agent without contextual direction on tool selection.

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