Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• figma_inspect_designC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for disclosure. 'Inspect' implies a read-only operation, but it never explicitly states that there are no side effects, nor does it mention any behavioral traits like error conditions or data sensitivity. The lack of detail on what 'compact task-oriented view' means adds to the opacity.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, concise sentence with no fluff. However, it's under-specified; while concise, it sacrifices clarity by using the vague phrase 'compact task-oriented view', slightly diminishing its usefulness.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Despite the output schema and rich input schema, the description is too brief to guide an agent on what the various views (summary, full, tree, nodes, assets, etc.) offer or when to use which. The tool has 7 parameters and 8 view options, but the description provides no high-level context about the inspection workflow or how it relates to packet preparation.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The input schema provides 100% parameter coverage, including descriptions for each property. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, but this is acceptable given the schema's thoroughness. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description uses the specific verb 'Inspect' and a clear resource ('Figma Packet'), which distinguishes it from siblings like figma_generate_unity_prefab. However, 'compact task-oriented view' is vague and doesn't specify what inspection entails beyond a general overview.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The phrase 'normal or diagnostic' hints at context but doesn't tell the agent when to choose this over figma_prepare_design or other siblings.

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

• figma_generate_unity_prefabB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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 mentions 'staged' and 'statically verified' which hints at a multi-step process but does not reveal that this tool writes files, can overwrite existing assets, or has destructive potential via overwrite flags. The side effects are undisclosed.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single sentence that is immediately comprehensible and front-loaded with the core action. No unnecessary words or repetition.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Despite a rich schema and output schema, the tool is complex (11 parameters, file-generation) and has no annotations. The description is too brief to cover essential context like file-writing behavior, overwrite risks, or workflow position. The agent is left to infer crucial operational details from the schema alone.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no extra meaning or context to parameters, thus the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description uses a specific verb ('Generate') and a specific resource ('UGUI Direct YAML Prefab snapshot') with qualifiers ('staged', 'statically verified') that clearly identify the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like figma_prepare_design and figma_verify_unity_prefab by focusing on the generation step.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention the prerequisite of a packet from figma_prepare_design or that it should precede figma_verify_unity_prefab. While the schema's packet_id parameter references figma_prepare_design, that is structured data, not the description's contribution.

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

• figma_list_framesB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states that it lists roots and does not disclose the caching behavior implied by the 'force_refresh' parameter, network/API dependence, or any access requirements.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is one concise sentence that is front-loaded with the primary verb and resource. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a simple listing tool with an output schema and full schema parameter coverage, the description is mostly complete. However, the lack of behavioral context (e.g., caching, staleness) and usage guidance prevents a perfect score.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both 'url' and 'force_refresh', so the schema carries the parameter semantics. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, meriting the baseline score.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description uses the specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource: 'Frame, Component, and Instance roots' in a Figma Design file. It is clearly differentiated from siblings like figma_inspect_design and figma_generate_unity_prefab by focusing on listing available roots.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, workflow position, or situations where another sibling tool would be preferred, leaving the agent to infer usage from context.

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

• figma_prepare_designB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It lists the major operations (fetch, normalize, render, download, validate, persist), which gives a transparent summary of the tool's behavior. However, it does not disclose details like caching semantics (e.g., that force_refresh bypasses a cache), potential side effects of persisting, or error behavior. The action list is useful but sparse on deeper behavioral context.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single concise sentence that lists all major actions in a structured, front-loaded sequence. It is appropriately sized and free of filler. However, the list format is slightly dense and might benefit from a clarifying phrase about the tool's role as a preparation step, but it remains efficient.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  The description covers the core workflow but lacks context about its role in the broader tool set. An output schema exists, so return values are likely covered elsewhere. Given the absence of annotations and no mention of when to use it, the description is not fully complete for an agent trying to decide between preparation and inspection tools.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The input schema provides 100% coverage for all 4 parameters, each with detailed descriptions. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter information, so the baseline of 3 applies. The schema already explains URL, node, image_scale, and force_refresh effectively.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description uses a specific, multi-step verb phrase ('Fetch, normalize, render, download, validate, and persist') with an explicit resource ('one Figma design root'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like figma_list_frames or figma_inspect_design, which focus on reading/list only, while this tool is a comprehensive preparation pipeline.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is a prerequisite for figma_generate_unity_prefab, nor does it describe scenarios where inspect or list would be more appropriate. Sibling tool names give context, but the description itself offers no explicit usage direction.

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

• figma_verify_unity_prefabA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Statically verify' suggests a non-destructive read-only operation, and the listed verification aspects add context about what is checked. However, it does not disclose what happens on failure, whether any output files are written, or the exact return structure beyond what the output schema might provide.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently enumerates the verification scope, making it highly concise and well-structured.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  With a full input schema, an output schema, and a concise list of verified components, the description covers the core function well. The only gaps are lack of explicit usage timing and alternative guidance, but given the simplicity of the tool and the presence of structured data, it is reasonably complete.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some context by associating 'own metadata' and 'source map' with verification targets, but it does not add new meaning or clarify parameter formats beyond the schema definitions. The value added is marginal.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description uses a specific verb 'statically verify' and explicitly lists the resources involved: Prefab YAML, ownership metadata, source map, sprites, and file ids. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'generate' and 'inspect' by conveying a verification purpose.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The term 'generated Prefab' implies the tool is intended to be used after a generation step, but the description does not explicitly state when to use it relative to alternatives or provide prerequisites. The usage context is only implied by the naming and wording.

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