Conduit

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

Annotations already cover key behavioral traits (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true), but the description adds valuable context by specifying the return format ('Array of objects... with the document info as JSON') and hints at the data scope ('detailed information'). This enhances transparency beyond what annotations provide, though it doesn't fully detail edge cases like performance implications.

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 highly concise and well-structured, with two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and return format. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it easy for an agent to parse and understand quickly.

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, no output schema) and rich annotations (including edgeCaseWarnings and extraInfo), the description is mostly complete. It covers the core action and return format, but could be more comprehensive by explicitly mentioning when to use it over siblings or detailing the JSON structure further, though annotations help fill some gaps.

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%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately focuses on the return value instead. Since there are no parameters to explain, a baseline of 4 is justified, as it avoids unnecessary repetition and adds value by describing the output.

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 detailed information about the current Figma document.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('current Figma document'), making the action explicit. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_node_info' or 'get_doc_pages', which also retrieve document-related information, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 lacks explicit instructions on usage context, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'get_node_info' or 'get_doc_pages', which might retrieve specific subsets of document data. This omission leaves the agent without clear direction for tool selection.

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