Conduit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format ('Array of guides, each with { axis, offset }'), which is helpful. However, it lacks critical behavioral details: whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'Get' but not stated), if it requires specific permissions, error conditions, or pagination/rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 perfectly concise and well-structured: two sentences that front-load the core purpose and follow with return details. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff. It efficiently communicates essential information without waste.

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 annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally complete. It states what the tool does and the return format, which is adequate for a basic retrieval operation. However, it lacks context about behavioral aspects (e.g., read-only nature, error handling), leaving gaps that could confuse an agent in complex scenarios.

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). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, so it appropriately focuses on output. It adds value by specifying the return structure, which isn't covered by an output schema. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and it meets this by being concise and relevant.

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 all guides on the current Figma page.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('guides'), and indicates scope ('all guides', 'current Figma page'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_page' or 'get_annotation', which are also retrieval operations in the same context.

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 prerequisites (e.g., needing an active page), exclusions, or related tools like 'set_guide' for modification. Usage is implied by the name and purpose but not explicitly stated.

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