get_figjam_elements

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 states it reads contents but does not disclose behavioral details (e.g., whether the tool is read-only, what happens if the page is not a FigJam board, or performance characteristics). The description is adequate but lacks depth.

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?

Two sentences: first explains what elements are retrieved, second when to use. Front-loaded, no filler, every sentence adds value.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context for a simple read operation. It lists the element types and board context. It could mention the output structure (e.g., returns an array) but is not required to be 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?

No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100% trivially. Per guidelines, 0 parameters warrants a baseline of 4. Description adds no parameter semantics, which is acceptable here.

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?

Description clearly states it retrieves FigJam-specific elements (stickies, connectors, shapes with text, sections, stamps) on the current page, distinguishing it from general node retrieval tools like get_node_info or get_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?

Explicitly recommends using this tool to read FigJam board contents, providing clear context. Lacks explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance, but the sibling list implies alternatives like get_node_info for broader node data.

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