figma_get_selection

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers the key prerequisite: 'WebSocket-only — requires Desktop Bridge plugin', which an agent must know before calling. It also implies read-only semantics via 'Get' and lists the returned fields. It does not describe what happens when the selection is empty or whether the call fails versus returns an empty array.

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: capability first, return shape second, prerequisite third, usage rationale last. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition of the name or schema.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, return fields, and the transport requirement — enough to call correctly. The only gap is edge-case behavior on an empty selection, which is a minor omission.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single 'verbose' parameter already documents its default and its figma_execute side path, so the description adds nothing beyond it. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Get the currently selected nodes in Figma') and immediately describes what comes back (IDs, names, types, dimensions). No sibling tool covers the user's current selection, so it is unambiguously distinguishable from figma_get_file_data or figma_get_focused_slide.

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?

Explicitly prescribes the scenario: 'Use this to understand what the user is pointing at instead of asking them to describe it' — a clear when-to-use with a decision heuristic. It does not name a when-not case or a fallback alternative (e.g., what to call when nothing is selected), which keeps it from a 5.

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