read_my_design

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the tool returns detailed information but does not explain what 'detailed' means, whether it is read-only, has side effects, or requires any prior actions. Behavioral expectations are vague.

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, clear sentence with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the tool's purpose.

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 mostly complete. It explains what the tool does (get info about current selection). However, it does not describe the output format or any potential limitations (e.g., size of selection, types of nodes). A slightly more detailed description would improve completeness.

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 zero parameters, so description does not need to add parameter semantics. However, it does add meaning by specifying the scope ('current selection'), which clarifies what the tool acts upon. Baseline 4 for zero parameters is justified.

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 it retrieves detailed information about the current selection in Figma, including all node details. It is specific and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_selection (which may return only IDs) and get_node_info (which requires a node ID). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from get_multiple_nodes_info or other info tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or context (e.g., only works when there is a selection). With many sibling tools that also retrieve node information, usage guidelines are lacking.

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