Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• search-figma-developer-docsA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what the tool does (search documentation) and what it returns (matching page paths and relevant excerpts), but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or pagination behavior. It's adequate but has clear gaps for a search tool.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place: the first explains the core functionality, and the second provides usage context. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and wastes no words.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool's moderate complexity (search function with 3 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic purpose and usage context but lacks details on return format, error cases, or behavioral constraints that would be helpful for an AI agent.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents all three parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3 for adequate but not enhanced parameter explanation.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Search across all Figma developer documentation') and resources ('documentation'), and distinguishes it from siblings by explaining it's for when you 'know what you're looking for but not which page it's on' (unlike the read-index and read-pages tools).

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides clear context on when to use this tool ('when you know what you're looking for but not which page it's on'), which implicitly differentiates it from the sibling tools that likely retrieve specific pages or indices. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives beyond the implied distinction.

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

• read-figma-developer-docs-pagesA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

  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 discloses key behavioral traits: it returns 'full markdown content' and supports 'multiple pages at once'. However, it doesn't mention error handling (e.g., what happens if a path is invalid), rate limits, authentication requirements, or pagination. For a read operation with no annotations, this is adequate but leaves gaps in behavioral understanding.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is three sentences with zero waste: first sentence states the purpose, second specifies the return format, third adds the multi-page capability. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and efficiently conveys all necessary information without redundancy.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool's low complexity (single parameter, read-only operation), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, input examples, return format, and multi-page support. However, it lacks details on error cases or response structure, which would be helpful for a tool with no output schema. It's mostly adequate but could be more comprehensive.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the single parameter 'paths'. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it provides example paths ('/docs/plugins/api/TextNode', '/docs/rest-api/authentication') and clarifies that you can 'request multiple pages at once', which is implied by the array type in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the specific action ('Read'), resource ('Figma developer documentation pages'), and scope ('specific pages'). It distinguishes from the sibling 'read-figma-developer-docs-index' (which presumably reads the index) and 'search-figma-developer-docs' (which searches rather than reading specific pages). The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides clear context on when to use this tool: for reading specific documentation pages when you know the exact paths. It implies an alternative (the sibling 'search-figma-developer-docs' for when you don't know the exact paths), but doesn't explicitly name it or state when not to use this tool. The guidance is helpful but not fully explicit about alternatives.

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

• read-figma-developer-docs-indexA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It clearly indicates this is a read operation and describes the return content structure (all documentation sections with page listings). However, it doesn't disclose potential behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions that would be important for an agent to know.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is perfectly concise with two well-structured sentences. The first sentence explains what the tool does, and the second provides crucial usage guidance. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary information.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description provides excellent context about what the tool returns and how it fits into a workflow with sibling tools. The main gap is the lack of output format details, but given the tool's simplicity and clear purpose, the description is nearly complete.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, focusing instead on the tool's purpose and usage context.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the specific action ('Read'), resource ('Figma developer documentation index'), and output ('all documentation sections with page listings'). It explicitly distinguishes this tool from its siblings by stating it should be used first to discover documentation before using read-figma-developer-docs-pages for specific pages.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Use this first to discover what documentation is available') and when to use alternatives ('then use read-figma-developer-docs-pages to read specific pages'). It creates a clear workflow relationship with sibling tools.

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