Figma-To-Code

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

No annotations provided; description mentions automatic detection of project configs and combining with PNG previews, but omits side effects, authentication needs, or concretely what the tool does (e.g., writes files, returns code). Incomplete behavioral disclosure.

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?

Description is a single paragraph of 4 sentences, front-loaded with purpose. Some redundancy exists (e.g., 'automatically parses...combines...'), but overall efficient for the detail provided.

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?

No output schema or annotations; description covers basic functionality but lacks specifics on output format, behavior when nodeId is omitted, or how code is delivered. Additional context needed for full understanding.

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% with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description only rephrases the schema (e.g., 'fileKey from URL'), adding no meaningful new info beyond what the schema already provides.

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 generates frontend code from Figma designs, with specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like download-svg-assets by emphasizing code generation and visual validation.

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 when to use (converting Figma designs to code) but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool references. Context is clear but not exhaustive.

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