get_document_info

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 implies a read operation via 'Get' but doesn't disclose what 'current document' means, whether it requires an open document, or the structure of the returned data. No behavioral traits beyond the basic read implication are shared.

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 sentence and very concise, but it omits substantive details that could make it more structured or informative. It earns its place but is under-specified, lacking a clear outline of what 'detailed information' includes.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what 'detailed information' includes, the return format, and how 'current document' is determined. It does none of this, leaving the tool's behavior underspecified.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing to explain. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter semantics are needed; the description does not add or omit essential parameter context.

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 uses a clear verb 'Get' and names the resource 'current Figma document,' distinguishing it from node-level tools like get_node_info and selection tools like get_selection. However, 'detailed information' is vague about the scope of details, so it does not fully specify what is returned.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like read_my_design or get_node_info. There are no usage contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess when this is the right choice.

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