figma_status

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 and locality profile is covered structurally. The description adds only the useful detail that the plugin is a 'local' one, and says nothing about what is returned (boolean? plugin version?) or failure behavior, so it adds modest value beyond structured data.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler and no wasted clauses. It is appropriately sized, though a second sentence on return value/next step would have earned 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?

With no output schema and no annotations describing results, the description should state what 'connected' looks like as a return value and what an agent should do on a negative result. For a health-check tool that other tools depend on, that is a meaningful gap.

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; baseline 4 applies. No parameter information is missing or needed.

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 ('Check whether') and a precise resource ('the local Figma plugin is connected'), which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from the mutation/read tools in the sibling list. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with siblings, but the purpose is self-evidently different.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is a preflight/health check to run before invoking figma_document, figma_create_nodes, etc., but the description never says when to call it, when not to, or what to do if the check fails. No explicit alternative or ordering guidance is given.

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