convert-figma-to-vue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It states that conversion happens, but does not disclose whether this is one-way, whether it modifies Figma files, whether mapping to Design System components is required, or what the generated output contains beyond 'Vue component code'.

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?

A single clear sentence with no filler. The main action, input, output, and design-system constraint are all front-loaded and every word 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?

The tool has no annotations, no output schema, nested parameters, and several similar sibling tools, so the description needs to carry more weight. It does not explain the return format, generation behavior, prerequisites, or how this differs from related code-generation tools, leaving an agent with meaningful uncertainty.

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?

The description reinforces the primary input (Figma frame) and adds the design-system context, but it adds little detail about the options object. The schema already describes scriptLang, componentName, includeScript, and includeComments; with only 50% schema description coverage, the description offers only marginal compensation for the less-documented option parameter.

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 names a specific verb ('Convert'), a concrete input ('Figma frame/screen'), a concrete output ('Vue component code'), and a distinguishing constraint ('using Design System components'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like generic generate-code or map-figma-component.

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 no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as generate-code, generate-figma-component, or map-figma-component. It does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or context for appropriate use.

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