memoire

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and delivers comprehensive behavioral disclosure. It explains error handling ('Never throws — returns { status: "down", error: string }'), success return structure, measurement methodology ('latencyMs is measured via a round-trip ping'), and operational constraints ('works even when no Figma plugin is connected'). This goes well beyond basic functional description.

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 efficiently structured with clear sections (purpose, prerequisites, returns, error behavior, usage guidelines) and every sentence adds value. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by operational details, and concludes with specific usage scenarios—no wasted words.

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?

For a parameterless diagnostic tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides complete context. It fully documents the return structure, error behavior, measurement methodology, and practical usage scenarios. The absence of an output schema is compensated by detailed return value documentation in the description.

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 has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately acknowledges this by stating 'Prerequisites: None' and focusing on the tool's behavior rather than parameter documentation, which is correct for a parameterless tool.

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 specific action ('Check the health and connection state') and resource ('Figma WebSocket bridge server'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that interact with Figma design content rather than server infrastructure. It explicitly defines the tool's scope as a diagnostic utility for bridge connectivity.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('as the first diagnostic step before calling any Figma-dependent tool', 'to verify bridge connectivity after running `memi connect`', 'to detect stale connections') and names specific alternative tools (pull_design_system, capture_screenshot, etc.) that require bridge connectivity. It also clarifies when NOT to use it by stating it works independently of plugin connections.

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