figma_scan_ds_compliance

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, which description matches. Description goes further by detailing returned data (coverage, samples, overflow) and explaining threshold difference. No annotations are contradicted.

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 dense but well-structured with bulleted returns. Each sentence adds value. Could be slightly more concise, but it's effectively front-loaded and clear.

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?

Despite no output schema, description fully explains all return data (score, breakdown, coverage, samples, overflow). Covers behavior on failure and read-only nature. Complete for a scan tool.

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%, so baseline 3. Description adds value for threshold: explains default (85) and why it's stricter than validate_screen. No new info for other params beyond schema, but this extra context justifies a 4.

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?

Description states tool is a 'Full DS compliance scan for a completed screen' with specific result extras (coverage, samples, overflow) that distinguish it from sibling figma_validate_screen. It also notes a stricter default threshold (85 vs 80).

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?

Explicitly says 'Read-only — never mutates the file' and instructs Claude to fix violations if passed: false. The 'FINAL GATE' label implies it's the last check. No contradictions or missing guidance.

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