figma_screenshot

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's job is lighter. It adds that this step is mandatory and involves 'save/read', which implies a non-destructive operation, consistent with annotations. No contradictions.

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, succinct sentence that conveys the essential purpose and usage context without superfluous words. Front-loaded with the most critical instruction.

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 read-only tool with rich schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately completes the context by specifying it as the mandatory first step. The connection to comparing builds is clear, though details about the comparison process might be left to sibling tools.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already thoroughly documents each parameter. The description does not add per-parameter details beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable; baseline 3 is appropriate plus some credit for the overall context linking parameters to the comparison workflow.

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 ('save/read', 'compare') and clearly identifies the resource (node PNG). It distinguishes this tool from siblings by asserting it as the 'MANDATORY first step' for comparing a build.

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 explicitly states it is the mandatory first step, implying when to use it (before comparing). It does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use it, but the context from sibling tools and the instruction to 'compare the finished build' provides clear context.

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