figma_setup

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

No annotations, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose the meaningful behavior — it writes a plugin scaffold to the local machine and returns an import path — which implies filesystem side effects. However it says nothing about overwrite semantics, whether it needs Figma running, or what happens on repeat invocation, which matters for a setup tool.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste: the first defines the action and its output, the second gives the invocation condition. Front-loaded and appropriately sized for a no-parameter tool.

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 input params and no output schema, the description supplies what the agent needs: that a manifest.json path is returned and when to call it. Minor gap is the absence of any note on prerequisites (e.g. pairing state or Figma being open) before this can succeed.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description appropriately spends its words on behavior and return value instead of parameters.

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?

States a specific verb (生成 / generate) and resource (本机已配对的 Figma 伴生插件) plus the concrete artifact returned (manifest.json 路径). An agent can tell this is a setup/bootstrap tool distinct from runtime siblings like use_figma or get_design_context, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 trailing clause '首次使用或重装时调用' gives an explicit trigger condition (first use or reinstall), which is the key usage signal for an idempotent setup tool. It stops short of stating alternatives or what to do if the plugin already exists, but the context is clear.

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