figma_validate_screen

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

Discloses that the tool is read-only and never mutates the file, consistent with annotations. Adds detail about the output structure (breakdown includes coverage and overflow) and the post-processing guideline, enhancing transparency.

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 comprehensive yet well-structured, with no wasted words. It front-loads the main purpose and includes version info, alternative tool, and usage instructions efficiently.

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 5 parameters, 1 required, and no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns (compliance score, breakdown dimensions) and provides context for usage and behavior, making it complete for an agent.

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% with descriptions, but the tool description adds context (e.g., expectedDs for library match scoring, minScore meaning, nodeId as the screen). This goes slightly beyond schema definitions, justifying 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?

The description clearly states the tool validates a screen against design-system criteria and returns a compliance score across 3 dimensions. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool figma_scan_ds_compliance by specifying when to use each.

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 tells when to use: 'AFTER creating a screen to verify DS compliance.' Also provides a conditional action for when score < minScore, and directs when to use the sibling tool instead.

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