figma_get_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the meaningful behaviors: the connection goes through the Desktop Bridge plugin over WebSocket, and probe triggers a live roundtrip command to the plugin. It does not say what happens on a failed check (error vs. status payload) or whether the plugin must be installed/running.

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 scope and transport, then the one actionable option. No filler and nothing buried.

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 single-optional-boolean status tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what is checked and what the probe returns at a conceptual level. It could add the failure-mode behavior (what a disconnected result looks like) to be fully complete.

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%, so the probe parameter is already fully documented, including the probeResult/latency return. The description's explanation of probe largely restates the schema rather than adding new syntax or default behavior, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (check connection status to Figma Desktop) and names the transport layer (Desktop Bridge plugin over WebSocket), which is more specific than the name alone. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the closest siblings figma_reconnect or figma_diagnose, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

Gives a clear conditional: use probe:true for an active roundtrip verification rather than a passive check, and explains what the passive check can miss ('not just TCP-open'). It stops short of saying when to use this versus figma_reconnect/figma_diagnose, and offers no exclusions.

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