Ingest FigJam Board

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It explains that the tool reads, clusters, and caches data, but lacks details on side effects (e.g., is caching persistent? can it be redone?), authorization beyond token handling, or potential performance implications.

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, moderately long sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality. It avoids unnecessary words but could be slightly more structured (e.g., separate sentences for purpose vs. usage linkage).

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (not shown but declared), the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the essential steps (read, cluster, cache) and links to sibling tools. Some missing detail on clustering meaning, but overall sufficient.

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 itself provides full parameter descriptions (100% coverage). The tool description adds context about clustering and caching but does not enhance the meaning of individual parameters beyond what the schema already offers.

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 specific verbs ('reads', 'clusters', 'caches') and clearly identifies the resource ('FigJam/Figma file'). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by stating that the output is used for later 'get_board_context' and 'answer_from_board' calls.

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 clearly indicates when to use this tool (as a prerequisite for the two sibling tools), providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative approaches.

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