figmad-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: the tool checks connectivity and implies that write operations depend on it. However, it lacks details on what 'connected' means (e.g., network status, authentication), potential errors, or response format. With no annotations, this is a moderate disclosure but could be more comprehensive.

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 highly concise and front-loaded: two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and usage context without any wasted words. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information efficiently.

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 low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is somewhat complete but could be improved. It explains the purpose and a key dependency for write operations, but lacks details on what the check entails (e.g., returns a boolean, error handling) or how it integrates with sibling tools. For a simple status check, this is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description does not add parameter information, which is acceptable here. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, as there is nothing to compensate for, and the schema fully covers the absence of inputs.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Check if the Figma plugin is connected.' This is a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('Figma plugin'), making the action clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, which include various Figma operations like 'get_file', 'create_frame', etc., though the plugin status check is fairly distinct in purpose.

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 provides clear context on when to use this tool: it implies it should be used to verify connectivity before performing write operations, as stated in 'Write operations require the plugin.' This gives a practical guideline, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or specify when not to use it (e.g., if only read operations are needed).

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