figma_get_selection

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Get' signals a read operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, what it returns (e.g., node objects vs. IDs), or behavior when nothing is selected. It provides minimal but not rich behavioral context.

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 concise sentence with no filler. It states the action and target clearly, earning its place entirely. This is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter read tool.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete. It could add a note about return format or empty selection behavior, but for a straightforward getter, the current text is sufficient. Sibling tools are numerous, but the name and description are self-explanatory.

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 schema has 100% coverage trivially. Per the calibration baseline for 0 params, the score is 4. There are no parameter semantics to explain, and the description adds no misleading 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 'Get currently selected nodes' uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('currently selected nodes'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like figma_get_node (fetches by ID) and figma_get_nodes (fetches multiple by ID) by referencing the live selection context.

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 implies usage when the current selection is needed but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like figma_get_node or figma_get_viewport. There are no exclusions or alternative tool references, so the usage context is only implicit.

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