getComputedCss

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

No annotations are provided, so the description should carry the full burden. While 'Get' implies a read operation, the description does not explicitly confirm it is non-mutating, nor does it disclose any potential side effects, performance considerations, or return format. It restates the tool's function without adding behavioral insights.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the primary use case. No extraneous words.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain return values and edge cases. It does not describe the response structure or any limitations. Given the tool's simplicity and full parameter documentation, this is an acceptable but not complete description.

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 schema documents all four parameters clearly. The description adds no additional parameter guidance beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 'Get computed CSS styles for element', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like getBoxModel and getFigmaStyles by specifying 'computed CSS styles'.

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 adds 'For layout debugging and responsive design', providing clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternative tools.

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