Get the code connect map (Figma compatible)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds the useful fact that the result spans the whole document rather than one node, but says nothing about empty results, pagination, or whether it covers only the current page/file.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with what the tool returns, zero filler. Every clause (scope, fields returned) carries information an agent needs.

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 compensates by enumerating the returned fields, and annotations carry the safety profile. Only minor gaps remain (scope of 'document' as file vs current page, behavior when nothing is connected).

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 takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case since no parameter semantics need explaining. The description correctly avoids inventing arguments the schema does not have.

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 specific resource (the code connect links of the document) plus a precise enumeration of what each entry carries: language, import path, name, and template. The document-wide scope implicitly separates it from node-scoped siblings like get_code, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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 says only what the tool returns; it never states when to reach for it versus alternatives such as get_code or get_metadata. Usage is left entirely to inference from the content description.

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