Conduit

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

Annotations provide rich behavioral hints (readOnlyHint: true, idempotentHint: true, destructiveHint: false, edgeCaseWarnings), so the bar is lower. The description adds value by specifying the return format ('Array of objects... with the pages info as JSON'), which isn't covered by annotations. It doesn't contradict annotations, as 'Get information' aligns with read-only behavior.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by return details. It's efficient with two sentences, though the return format explanation could be slightly more concise (e.g., 'Returns an array of objects with page information as JSON'). No wasted words, but minor room for tightening.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, read-only), annotations cover safety and edge cases comprehensively, and the description adds output format details. There's no output schema, so the description's return explanation is valuable. It's nearly complete for this context, lacking only explicit sibling differentiation or advanced usage notes.

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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). With no parameters, the baseline is 4, as there's nothing to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately focuses on the output instead.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get information about all pages in the current Figma document.' It specifies the verb ('Get information') and resource ('pages in the current Figma document'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_page' (singular) or 'get_document_info', which might provide overlapping information.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_page' (for a single page) or 'get_document_info' (which might include page data), nor does it specify prerequisites or contextual constraints. The annotations include 'extraInfo' with basic usage, but the description itself lacks this guidance.

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