figma_get_selection

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so the bar is lower, but the description still adds value by enumerating what the payload contains (dimensions, coordinates, text, fills, parent, page, AutoLayout context). It does not state what happens when nothing is selected (empty result vs error), which is the main remaining behavioral gap.

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 front-loaded sentence with the verb first and the property list tucked into a parenthetical; nothing is wasted. The parenthetical enumeration is dense but each item carries real information.

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 must convey return contents, and the property list does that adequately for a read-only, zero-required-param tool. Only the empty-selection behavior and shape of the returned structure are left unspecified.

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?

There is a single optional parameter whose schema description is fully covered (100%) and already points at figma_list_targets. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (get) and resource (currently selected nodes on the Figma canvas) and enumerates the properties returned, which lets an agent distinguish it from selection-agnostic siblings like figma_read_canvas or figma_inspect. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings.

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 'currently selected nodes' – the tool only makes sense when something is selected – but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over figma_inspect, figma_read_canvas, or figma_screenshot. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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