Agent Font Access connections

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds that this is a prerequisite discovery step, but says nothing about what a 'connected file' looks like or how connections appear/disappear.

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?

Two short sentences, zero waste, with the purpose front-loaded and the call-ordering guidance immediately after. Nothing could be removed without losing 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?

There is no output schema, so the description is the only place the agent could learn what the listing returns (file names? identifiers? font/connection state?). It establishes the discovery role but leaves the shape of the result — the thing the agent must feed into the inspect/edit tools — 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no inputs are required to enumerate connected files.

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 and resource ('List connected Figma Desktop files'), which usefully disambiguates the opaque tool name figma_local_fonts_status. It doesn't explicitly name the sibling tools it precedes, but the file-listing scope is clear.

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?

'Call first to identify the target file before inspecting or editing local-font text' gives a concrete sequencing rule and names the downstream activities it enables. It doesn't address the search/create siblings or say when this call can be skipped.

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