map-figma-component

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the mapping outcome and that default props are included, but it does not disclose behavior for unmapped names, whether the operation is read-only, or what the exact return shape is. This is a meaningful gap for a tool with no safety hints.

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 sentence that is direct, front-loaded, and free of filler. It conveys the core action and expected result without unnecessary detail.

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?

This is a low-complexity tool with one simple parameter and high schema coverage, so less description is needed. However, with no output schema and no behavior around missing mappings or return structure, the description is adequate but not fully complete for an agent to predict all outcomes.

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 the single parameter is well documented with examples. The description adds minimal parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, but the baseline remains acceptable because the schema already carries the semantic weight.

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?

States a specific verb ('Map') with a clear resource (Figma component name) and outcome (corresponding Design System component with default props). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list-figma-mappings by focusing on a single mapping rather than a listing.

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 implies use when a Figma component name needs to be resolved to a Design System component, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over siblings like get-component, get-props, or list-figma-mappings. No exclusions or alternative conditions are mentioned.

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