jev_push_screens

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add useful context: it creates auto-layout frames/components, enables live two-way sync, and requires a running dev server. However, it does not disclose side effects on existing Figma screens, whether the operation is reversible, or that live sync persists until stopped.

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 two sentences with no filler. The main action and output format are front-loaded, and the prerequisite and trigger phrase are delivered efficiently. Every sentence earns its place.

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 six-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is adequate but thin. It covers purpose, trigger, and prerequisite, but omits what the tool returns, how live sync can be stopped, and how this tool relates to siblings like jev_sync_now and jev_stop_live.

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%, and each parameter already has a meaningful description. The tool description adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond reinforcing the dev-server prerequisite, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific action ('Push the app's screens into Figma'), a concrete output shape ('auto-layout frames and components'), and a distinguishing behavioral feature ('live two-way sync'). The trigger phrase 'push to Figma' also makes it easy for an agent to recognize when this tool is intended.

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 gives clear usage context: call it when the user says 'push to Figma' and only when the dev server is running. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like jev_sync_now or jev_stop_live, so it falls short of a full 5.

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