figma_context_parser

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 mentions 'updates the shared design context' which suggests a side effect, but does not clarify the nature of the update (e.g., destructive, reversible), authentication requirements, or rate limits. The behavior is only partially disclosed.

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 sentence of 16 words with no wasted content. It is front-loaded with the primary action 'Read' and efficiently conveys all key aspects of the tool's function.

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's moderate complexity, the description covers the main purpose but omits important details such as the return value (since no output schema exists) and the exact implications of 'updates the shared design context'. An AI agent would need to infer what is returned or how the update affects state.

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 100% description coverage, providing clear definitions for both parameters. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline for a well-documented schema.

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 the tool reads Figma file nodes, extracts design tokens, and maps them to Tailwind CSS utilities, with an update to shared design context. The verb 'Read' and resource 'Figma file nodes' are specific, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like analyze_component_library, which may have overlapping functionality.

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 usage for extracting design tokens from Figma and mapping to Tailwind, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like analyze_component_library or figma_push_variables. There is no mention of when not to use it.

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