figma_selection

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

Annotations already indicate this is read-only and non-destructive, so the description does not contradict them. It adds the notion that the tool depends on a 'current' selection state, but does not disclose what happens when there is no active selection or whether the returned id is a node id. This is acceptable but not rich.

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?

A single sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. The purpose and output are stated directly, making it efficiently scannable for an agent.

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 low-complexity tool with one optional parameter, full schema coverage, and safety annotations, the description is nearly complete. It conveys that the tool returns a reusable id, though it could mention behavior for an empty selection or confirm the return format.

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 coverage is 100%, so the fileKey parameter is already described as 'Figma key/URL.' The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, which is consistent with the baseline of 3.

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 a clear verb ('Read') and a specific resource ('the current Figma selection'), and indicates the output ('its id'). It distinguishes itself from rendering/screenshot/comment tools, though it does not explicitly name any sibling to differentiate from.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like figma_inspect or figma_reference, nor any mention of prerequisites such as an active Figma session or a non-empty selection. The usage is only implied by the verb 'Read' and the notion of a 'current selection'.

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