Conduit

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

The description adds some behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, non-destructive read operation. The description adds useful context about the return format ('Array of objects... with generated HTML string'), which isn't covered by annotations. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens with invalid node IDs.

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 perfectly concise and well-structured. The first sentence clearly states the tool's purpose, and the second sentence efficiently describes the return format. Every sentence earns its place with zero wasted words, making it easy for an AI agent to parse quickly.

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 (3 parameters, 100% schema coverage, rich annotations), the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does and what it returns. Since there's no output schema, the return format description is valuable. However, it could be more complete by mentioning when to use this versus sibling tools or potential constraints.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already fully documents all three parameters (nodeId, cssMode, format) with descriptions, defaults, and enums. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no parameter details in the description.

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's purpose: 'Generates HTML structure from Figma nodes.' It specifies both the verb ('generates') and resource ('HTML structure from Figma nodes'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_css_async' or 'get_svg_vector' that also generate code from Figma nodes, which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools available (like 'get_css_async' for CSS or 'get_svg_vector' for SVG), there's no indication of when HTML generation is appropriate versus other output formats. The description only states what the tool does, not when it should be selected.

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