Conduit

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

Annotations already cover key behavioral traits (readOnlyHint: true, idempotentHint: true, destructiveHint: false), but the description adds valuable context about the return format ('Array of objects... type: "text" and a text field with the selection info as JSON') and the annotations' edgeCaseWarnings provide additional behavioral details (empty array if nothing selected, array for multiple nodes). The description complements annotations without contradiction.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the purpose, the second details the return format. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it front-loaded and appropriately sized.

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, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose and return format, but could slightly enhance completeness by explicitly mentioning the read-only/inspection nature, though annotations partially address this. It's adequate but not exhaustive.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, as none exist, and focuses on the return value instead, which adds semantic value beyond the empty input schema.

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 with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('information about the current selection in Figma'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'set_selection' or 'get_node_info'. It explicitly identifies the domain (Figma) and scope (current selection).

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 implies usage context ('current selection in Figma') and the annotations provide explicit guidance ('Use this command to inspect the current selection context'), but it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings. The context is clear but lacks exclusion criteria.

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