figma_bridge_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does meaningfully disclose the channel model (one plugin = one channel/server, defaults to 'default', tied to FIGMA_BRIDGE_CHANNEL) and what is returned. It stops short of explicitly confirming the operation is side-effect-free.

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 the return payload, then the channel semantics. Efficient and low-waste, though the second sentence is dense with config details.

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 output schema, the description does the necessary work of describing what is returned (connection status, active channel, connected channels). For a zero-param read status tool this is largely complete, missing only explicit usage/return-format specifics.

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, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The schema is empty and nothing further is needed on the parameter front.

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 verb ('Returns') and a clear resource set: plugin connection state, active channel, and all connected channels with their Figma files. It's distinct from write/modify siblings, though it overlaps somewhat with list_channels and offers no explicit differentiation from that sibling.

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 explains the channel default and its tie to FIGMA_BRIDGE_CHANNEL but never says when to call this tool versus alternatives like list_channels or join_channel, and gives no preconditions or exclusions.

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