figma_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The verbs 'check' and 'report' imply a read-only, non-mutating operation, but the description does not disclose potential failure modes (e.g., what happens if the plugin is not connected) or any side effects. It adds minimal context beyond what the verbs convey.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the tool's purpose without any extraneous words. It earns its place completely.

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 simple status check with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and main outputs. It omits details about the reporting format or connection semantics, but the tool's simplicity makes this acceptable.

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?

With zero parameters, the schema fully defines the input structure. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description does not detract from this.

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 specific verbs 'check' and 'report' with clear targets: the local Figma Desktop plugin connection and the active file/page. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that fetch metadata, page structure, selection, nodes, design context, or screenshots.

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 the tool is for status checks but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it over siblings or when not to use it. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the sibling list.

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