analyze_design

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It details return structures per mode, error conditions, and prerequisites. It discloses that the tool is a read/analysis operation (no mention of mutation). The description could be improved by explicitly stating non-destructive behavior.

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 well-structured: purpose, prerequisites, outputs per mode, errors, mode explanations, and use case. Every sentence adds value. It is slightly long but necessary given the tool's complexity.

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?

No output schema exists, so description must explain return values, which it does thoroughly. It covers prerequisites, errors, and mode distinctions. Minor gaps: missing explicit statement that nodeId is optional and defaults to entire page, and no differentiation from similar analysis tools like diagnose_app_quality.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining each mode's purpose and output beyond the schema, plus error handling. It does not delve into parameter details but provides sufficient context for mode selection.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Capture a Figma node and analyze it with configured AI vision.' It specifies the resource (Figma node) and the analysis types (general, accessibility, spec-compliance), distinguishing it from sibling tools like capture_screenshot.

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 explicit prerequisites (bridge + plugin, vision-capable AI provider) and explains when to use each mode. It also situates the tool within a self-heal loop, offering clear context for usage. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it versus alternatives.

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