Get Figma Selection

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. It discloses that this is a read operation (non-mutating), but says nothing about behavior when there is no selection, the meaning of depth, timeout semantics, or error conditions. Minimal disclosure beyond the basic function.

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?

A single, directly worded sentence with no filler, clearly front-loaded with the action. It is concise and to the point, every word earns its place.

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?

The tool has two meaningful parameters and no output schema, but the description does not clarify depth semantics, timeout behavior, or return structure. Given the lack of annotations, the description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand behavior and edge cases.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not mention 'depth' or 'timeoutMs' at all, leaving their semantics entirely to the schema. The description adds no value beyond field names and defaults already shown in the schema.

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 the specific verb 'Read' with the resource 'currently selected nodes' in the active Figma page, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like figma_read_node (specific node) and figma_get_document_info (general info).

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 context is clear: use this tool to get the current selection. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though the sister tools make the distinction implicit. This is clear context without exclusions.

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