convertFigmaToCode

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool fetches node structure and rendered image and returns simplified design data with AI instructions, which is transparent about its internal process. However, it lacks explicit statements about side effects, error conditions, or prerequisites like authentication.

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?

Three concise sentences lead with the core purpose, followed by the process and focus area. Each sentence adds distinct value with no filler or repetition.

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 description outlines the high-level workflow but does not detail the exact structure of the returned 'simplified design data' or possible limitations. With no output schema, this leaves some ambiguity about the response format, though it covers the tool's main function adequately.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage for all five parameters, so the schema fully documents them. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already states, so it merits the baseline 3.

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?

Clearly states it converts Figma designs to React/Tailwind code, with a specific verb, resource, and outcome. The process description (fetches node structure and rendered image, returns design data with AI instructions) distinguishes it from sibling tools like getFigmaFrame or getFigmaSpecs.

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 for converting Figma designs to React/Tailwind code and mentions its focus on React/Tailwind styling, offering some context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over related Figma tools, nor does it provide exclusions or mention alternatives.

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