figma_audit_selection

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool 'audits' but does not disclose whether it modifies the selection, requires a specific state, or what the output format is (e.g., list of issues, pass/fail). This leaves significant ambiguity about side effects and behavior.

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?

The description is a single sentence that efficiently communicates the purpose and scope. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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?

Given no output schema, the description should hint at return values or results. It does not explain what the audit produces (e.g., a report, errors, or a score). Additionally, the tool has 5 boolean parameters but no guidance on how they combine or default behavior.

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?

All 5 parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds marginal extra meaning beyond listing the same categories. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents the parameters adequately.

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 clearly states the tool audits the current selection for design system issues, listing specific categories (spacing, colors, typography, auto layout, accessibility). This distinguishes it from siblings like figma_get_selection (which only returns the selection) and figma_export_selection_json (which exports raw data).

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 implies use when checking design system compliance, but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it compare with alternatives like figma_get_selection or figma_export_selection_json for similar tasks.

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