extract_figma_i18n

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool 'extracts' (non-destructive) and groups by frame/component, which is useful. However, it does not disclose limitations (e.g., handling of hidden text), permission requirements, or output format. There is also a slight mismatch where the description says 'file' but the parameter allows a 'frame URL', leaving ambiguity about scope. Not misleading, but incomplete.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and purpose, with no unnecessary words. It is efficient and easy to parse.

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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core action and grouping but omits return format, error conditions, or examples. Since the tool is straightforward, this is adequate but could be enhanced with a hint about the output structure.

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 schema already documents the parameter fully (100% coverage) as 'Figma file link or frame URL'. The description adds no additional semantic information about how to provide the URL or how the tool interprets it. Baseline 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 explicitly states the verb 'extracts', the resource 'Figma file', the scope 'all visible text', the grouping 'by frame/component', and the purpose 'for i18n translation'. This is a specific, unambiguous definition that clearly distinguishes the tool's function.

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 provides the use case 'for i18n translation', which implies when to use it, but it does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or conditions. With no sibling tools, there is no explicit routing guidance, though the purpose partially compensates. Usable but not explicit.

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