read_my_design

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. The name and verb 'Get' imply a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose what happens when there is no selection, whether multiple nodes are returned, or the exact structure of the returned 'node details'. It remains somewhat vague about the tool's behavior beyond the basic read action.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and subject. It is concise with no wasted words or redundant phrasing.

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 no parameters and no output schema, so the description is the only source for return expectations. It says 'detailed information' and 'all node details' but does not enumerate the details or mention edge cases like empty selection. While the tool is simple, the description could be more precise about the returned content and error 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?

The input schema is empty with zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The description does not need to compensate for undocumented parameters, and the baseline for 0 parameters is 4, which is appropriate here.

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', and adds 'including all node details' which specifies the scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_selection' which likely returns only the selection IDs, and 'get_node_info' which targets specific nodes rather than the current selection.

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 usage when the current selection's details are needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'get_selection' or 'get_node_info'. There is no exclusionary guidance or mention of alternatives, so the usage context is only implied.

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