figma_health

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does state the two conditions it checks, which is transparent about its scope. However, it does not mention side effects (though 'check' implies none), return format, error behavior, or what happens if connectivity fails. For a zero-parameter read-only health check, this is adequate but not rich.

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 clear sentence with no redundancy. It front-loads the verb 'Check' and the object, making it immediately scannable. 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 is simple (zero params, no output schema), so the description covers the main function. However, it does not explain the return value or status format, which the agent might need to interpret the health check result. Given the lack of an output schema, a brief note on the response would improve completeness.

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?

There are no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed since the schema is empty and coverage is 100%. The description correctly focuses on the tool's behavior rather than inputs.

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 tool's function: checking whether the local Figma bridge is up and whether the Development plugin is connected. The verb 'Check' plus the specific resources (bridge, plugin) makes the purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from siblings like figma_exec (execution) and figma_selection_info (selection details).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this should be run before other Figma tools to verify connectivity, nor does it reference sibling tools or any exclusion scenarios. The intended usage is only implied by the tool name 'figma_health', not stated.

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