figma_get_viewport

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation with no side effects, but the description does not explicitly confirm non-mutating behavior or mention any prerequisites (e.g., an open file) or return format details beyond the listed attributes. It is minimally adequate but not rich.

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 extremely concise - a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys all necessary information about the tool's function. No wasted words, perfectly structured for quick comprehension.

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 has no parameters and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete for a simple getter. It lists the output attributes, but it does not explain the coordinate system or units for position/visible bounds, nor does it clarify that 'viewport' refers to the active view in the editor. Slight ambiguity prevents a perfect score.

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?

There are 0 parameters, so the baseline score is 4 per the rubric. The description adds value by specifying what the tool returns (position, zoom, visible bounds), which provides meaningful context beyond the empty schema, even though there are no parameters to document.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource 'viewport' plus the exact data returned (position, zoom, visible bounds). This clearly distinguishes it from other getter tools like get_selection or get_node, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 you need the current viewport state, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. For a simple getter, the implied usage is adequate but lacks explicit guidance.

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