Connection Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that by enumerating the state it inspects (including the pairing code, which implies setup/auth troubleshooting) and framing it as a failure-diagnosis tool.

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, front-loaded with what the tool reports and ending on the usage trigger. The enumeration is long but each item conveys a distinct piece of diagnostic state, so little is wasted.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description compensates by listing the returned fields (connection, pairing code, file/page/selection, project, Code Connect, snapshots). It stops short of describing format or failure/empty behavior, but is adequate for a simple status probe.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description correctly adds no parameter discussion, avoiding noise.

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?

States a clear noun-phrase purpose — 'Status of the local Figma connection' — and enumerates the exact scope (plugin connection, pairing code, open file/page/selection, project and Code Connect file, snapshots). No sibling does diagnostics/status, so it is easily distinguished, though the verb is implicit rather than stated.

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?

'Use it when a read fails' gives an explicit trigger condition for reaching for this tool. It does not name alternatives or say when not to use it, but for a zero-param diagnostic the trigger is the main thing an agent needs.

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