figma_auth_status

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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world call, so the safety profile needs no repeating. The description adds one genuinely useful fact beyond them: the response never includes tokens, so the agent knows the output is safe to log or expose. It still does not say what the status values actually look like or what a disconnected state implies.

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 one short sentence is front-loaded with the action and resource, and the security clause comes immediately after it. There is no filler, though the description is brief enough that it reads more like a label than a full explanation of the tool's role.

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?

Complexity is low: there are no parameters, the tool is read-only, and the annotations are rich. Even so, there is no output schema, and the description does not say what fields or values the status response contains (for example, connected/disconnected or account identity). It also does not cover the near-duplicate figma_status sibling, leaving a real decision ambiguity unresolved.

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 are zero parameters and the schema is an empty object, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to add. The baseline score for a no-argument tool therefore applies, and no parameter documentation is missing.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it 'reads connection status'. The phrase 'without returning tokens' further pins down what kind of status this is (auth/credential state, not general plugin state). However, it never distinguishes itself from sibling tools such as figma_status or figma_connect, and the meaning of 'connection status' here could be confused with figma_status.

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 does not say when to use this tool or when to use a sibling instead, such as figma_status for general status or figma_connect/figma_disconnect for state changes. At best, 'without returning tokens' implies a safe way to check auth before an operation, but that inference is left entirely to the agent.

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