read_my_design

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of transparency. It merely says 'detailed information' without specifying what fields are returned, whether the operation is read-only (though the name implies it), or any limitations or side effects. This is minimal disclosure.

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, concise sentence that is easy to read and front-loaded. However, it lacks specificity that could be included without much added length, such as what 'detailed information' entails.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description is the only source of context. It is too terse to fully convey what the tool returns, and it does not address how it differs from similar sibling tools. The low complexity is offset by the ambiguity created by overlapping siblings, making the description incomplete.

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 the rubric sets a baseline of 4 for such cases. The description doesn't need to add parameter context because there are none to explain.

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 gets detailed information about the current selection in Figma, but it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like get_selection or get_node_info. The phrase 'including all node details' adds some specificity, but the overlap with existing siblings creates ambiguity.

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 alternatives such as get_selection or get_node_info. It does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess which tool is appropriate.

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