mimic_map_components

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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false. The description adds significant behavioral context: caching mechanism, gap confirmation, and the search loop completion behavior. No contradiction with annotations.

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 around 100 words, front-loads the core purpose, and is divided into clear sentences. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or unnecessary information.

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 tool's complexity (2 params, output schema exists), the description covers purpose, workflow position, caching behavior, and conditional usage. It does not cover error handling, but with the existing output schema, the description is sufficiently complete for an AI agent.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds valuable semantic guidance for both parameters: for elementTypes it specifies 'all section-level + control element types', and for librarySearchResults it explains the search loop and filtering behavior, going beyond the schema's type descriptions.

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 maps HTML element types to DS component keys, providing specific examples (button, input, etc.) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like mimic_discover_ds by specifying its workflow position.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to call (after mimic_discover_ds, before figma_insert_component) and how to use it differently depending on FIGMA_TOKEN presence. It does not list alternatives or when not to use, but the conditional instructions are very clear.

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