figma_get_annotation_categories

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

Because no annotations are provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses the two most important facts: the tool is scoped to the current file and depends on the Desktop Bridge plugin. However, it does not describe error behavior when the plugin is disconnected, nor the shape of returned items (IDs only, or IDs plus names).

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, each with a distinct job: what it does, what the data means, and how to use the output. Information is front-loaded with no repetition or filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so leaving it to the description was the right call; the description compensates by explaining that category IDs are returned and can be reused. For a zero-parameter listing tool, this is nearly complete; the only minor gap is the exact return structure of each category.

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 document and the baseline is a 4. It neither adds nor omits parameter information.

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 starts with a clear statement of a specific verb and resource: "List available annotation categories in the current Figma file." It also explains what the resource is (categories group annotations by purpose) and clearly distinguishes it from the sibling figma_get_annotations, which returns the annotations themselves.

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?

It states the downstream workflow explicitly: use the returned category IDs with figma_set_annotations, which tells the agent why and when to call this tool. It also gives a hard prerequisite ("Requires Desktop Bridge plugin"). The only gap is that it never states when not to call it or what happens if categories are unavailable.

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