get_basic_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses a key behavior: the returned data is a compact summary/context snapshot rather than full detail. It also clarifies coordinate semantics (worldX/worldY vs x/y). However, it does not mention side effects, performance characteristics, or whether it works when no file is open.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states exactly what is returned, the second gives an immediate usage directive, and the two bullet points clarify important coordinate semantics. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 read-only context-gathering tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential information an agent needs: what data comes back, when to call it, and how to interpret coordinate fields. Minor gaps include return shape details (e.g., units or format of dimensions), but these are not critical for invoking the tool.

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 schema coverage is 100% and the fileId parameter is well described in the schema itself. The description adds value by not repeating the parameter details, and the 'current design' phrasing clarifies that the default target is the active canvas/file. Since the schema fully covers the single optional parameter, a baseline 3 applies; the description's contextual framing nudges it to 4.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get essential context about the current design' and enumerates concrete contents (file name, page name, node count, artboards, fonts, tokens). It is clear about what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_node_info or get_tree_summary.

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 explicitly instructs 'Call get_basic_info first to understand the canvas situation.' This gives a clear when-to-use directive. It does not state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the 'first' framing strongly implies it is the entry-point context tool.

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