Conduit

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

Annotations provide rich behavioral info (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, edgeCaseWarnings). The description adds minimal value by specifying the return format ('Array of objects...'), which isn't covered in annotations. However, it doesn't elaborate on side effects, permissions, or rate limits beyond what annotations imply, so it's adequate but not highly informative.

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 concise and front-loaded, with the main purpose stated first and return details in a separate section. Both sentences are relevant and add value, with no wasted words. It could be slightly improved by integrating the return info more seamlessly, but it's efficient overall.

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 required parameters), rich annotations, and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the action and return format, though it lacks usage context. With annotations handling safety and edge cases, the description provides enough context for an agent to understand the tool's role, but gaps in guidelines prevent a perfect score.

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%, with clear parameter descriptions and enums. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even without param details in the description, which applies here.

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: 'Sets hug or fill sizing mode on an auto layout frame or child node in Figma.' It specifies the verb ('Sets'), resource ('auto layout frame or child node'), and domain ('Figma'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'set_auto_layout' or 'resize_node', which might handle similar operations, so it doesn't reach the highest 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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or compare with sibling tools like 'set_auto_layout' or 'resize_node'. This leaves the agent without clear usage instructions, relying solely on the tool name and annotations.

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