validate-figma-component

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Check if' strongly implies a non-mutating read-only predicate, but it does not disclose the return format, error behavior, or whether the check is based on static naming rules or live mapping data. These gaps prevent a higher score.

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 a single clear sentence with no filler or repetition. The core action and target are front-loaded, making it very easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 simple one-parameter validation tool, the description covers the basic purpose and input adequately. However, with no output schema and no usage guidance, it leaves the agent to infer the return value and ideal invocation context, so it is not fully complete.

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 single parameter figmaComponentName is 100% covered by the schema's description and example. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Check if') with a clear resource ('Figma component name') and outcome ('can be mapped to a Design System component'). It clearly distinguishes this validation tool from sibling tools like map-figma-component, which would actually perform the mapping.

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 phrase 'Check if ... can be mapped' implies a pre-validation or verification use case, especially alongside map-figma-component. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or workflow context.

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