figma_get_selection

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 does indicate 'Read', implying a non-mutating operation, and lists some output content, but it does not disclose important behavioral traits such as what happens with an empty selection, the meaning of 'bounded child tree', or performance implications. The description is too sparse for full behavioral transparency.

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, direct sentence that front-loads the core function ('Read the current Figma selection') and includes no redundant or unrelated information. It earns every word.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description needs to be more self-sufficient. It states the basic action and some output categories but does not explain the result format, how the parameters shape the output, or edge cases. For a simple tool this is still a significant gap.

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 0%, so parameters (depth, maxNodes, maxChildren) are only known by name and constraints. The description's phrase 'bounded child tree' hints that parameters control limits, but it does not explain each parameter's meaning or effect. The compensation is minimal and leaves the agent to guess from names and defaults.

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 'Read' and names the resource 'current Figma selection', while listing key output categories (layout, text, fills, bounded child tree). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like figma_get_node (specific node) and figma_get_screenshot (image).

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 context is clear: it reads the current selection. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of when not to use it. The usage is implied by the name and description, not explicitly stated.

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