figma_get_canvas_layout

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and the bar is lower. The description adds that it returns coordinates, a bounding box and a computed suggested position, but it never clarifies that the layout/gap/columns/direction parameters only shape the *suggestion* and do not mutate the canvas — a real ambiguity for a tool whose name implies layout changes.

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 purpose followed by the return payload, with zero filler. Nothing in the text is redundant with the schema or annotations.

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 six-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations gap, the description should at least sketch the shape of the returned frame list and explain the relationship between the layout parameters and the suggestion. It covers the return values at a headline level but leaves the parameter-to-output mechanics and the overlap with sibling read tools unexplained.

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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter including the two enums is already documented in the schema; baseline 3 applies. The description contributes nothing about how gap, layout, columns or direction interact with the suggestedNextPosition calculation, so it adds no meaning beyond the structured fields.

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 names a concrete verb and resource ('Inspect top-level frames and artboards on the active Figma page') and states the derived output ('suggestedNextPosition'), which is far more specific than the tool name alone. It does not, however, distinguish itself from overlapping siblings such as figma_read_canvas or figma_inspect, so an agent cannot tell from the description which one to reach for.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'to prevent overlap' and 'for placing new artboards safely', giving a motivation but not a decision rule. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no alternative tool named, even though figma_read_canvas and figma_get_selection are plausible substitutes.

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