get_events

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and usefully discloses that cursor state lives in the MCP server process and resets on restart. It also identifies the event types read. It does not describe authentication needs, blocking behavior, or return payload details.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds necessary information about event types, paging, or cursor lifetime.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the important cursor mechanics and server-state reset. It leaves some return-value and first-call details implicit, but the essential invocation context is present.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain sinceSeq; it does so by defining it as the previous call's currentSeq used for paging forward. It does not say what happens when sinceSeq is omitted or provide a default-start example.

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 specifies a clear verb and resource: reading pushed Figma events of types selectionchange/documentchange since a sequence cursor. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as subscribe_events or get_changes_since, so sibling selection relies on inference.

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?

It gives concrete operational guidance: pass the previous call's currentSeq as sinceSeq to page forward. It provides clear usage context but does not state when to prefer this tool over subscribe_events, unsubscribe_events, or get_changes_since.

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