read_my_design

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, which is the primary behavioral trait. However, the description does not confirm the absence of side effects, mention authorization requirements, or handle edge cases like an empty selection. It is minimally adequate.

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 of 13 words with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Get' and immediately conveys the core purpose. Every word earns its place, making it very concise and easy to parse.

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 that there is no output schema, the description should provide more detail about what 'all node details' includes (e.g., geometry, properties, styles) to help the agent understand the returned data. The current description is vague and could lead to incomplete expectations. It is adequate but could be improved.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description does not need to add parameter meaning because there are none. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate when schema coverage is high and there are no parameters. The description does not contradict or add unnecessary information.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'detailed information about the current selection in Figma, including all node details'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_selection' (which likely just returns selection IDs) and 'get_node_info' (which requires a node ID). It is specific and unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, recommended contexts, or situations where other tools (e.g., 'get_node_info' for specific nodes) would be more appropriate. This leaves the agent without usage context.

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