figjam_get_connections

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden; 'Read' plus 'Returns' establishes a safe read operation, and the return shape plus a 'summary of connected nodes' is disclosed. It omits which board is targeted (no params), whether large boards are truncated, and any permission prerequisites.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the return shape. The second and third sentences partially repeat the 'returns connectors/edges' point, which is minor waste but not bloat.

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, the description does supply the edge shape, but it never says how the target FigJam board is determined (active file vs. selection) or how large graphs are handled. An agent could call it but may be unsure of scope.

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 the baseline is 4. The description correctly leaves parameter discussion out rather than inventing any.

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 ('Read the connection graph from a FigJam board') and even the shape of what comes back (connectors with start/end node refs and labels). It is unambiguous about what it does, though it never contrasts itself with the overlapping figjam_get_board_contents sibling.

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?

One sentence gives implied context ('understand relationships, flowcharts, and diagrams'), which is genuine usage guidance but not explicit when/when-not rules. An agent is left to infer that this is the connector-only view versus the broader board contents tool.

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