mimic_pipeline_resolve

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

The description adds substantial behavioral details beyond the minimal annotations, explaining the classification process (DIRECT_HTML vs RENDERED_DOM_REQUIRED), automatic rendering, validation, and the decision flow based on result.status. This fully carries the burden of transparency.

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 concise with two sentences that front-load the core purpose and then provide essential procedural details. No redundant words; every sentence earns its place.

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 absence of an output schema, the description adequately explains the return structure (result.status, result.outputPath) and the resolution process. It covers the key behaviors needed for an agent to use the tool correctly, though it could detail the exact result object further.

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 baseline is 3. The description reinforces the purpose of the three input types (url, htmlFilePath, htmlContent) but does not add new meaning beyond what the schema already provides for timeout and cookies.

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 as a deterministic input resolver for HTML to Figma builds, specifying the verb 'resolve' and the resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like mimic_render_url and figma_* tools by establishing its role as a preliminary step.

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 explicitly says 'ALWAYS call this BEFORE starting any HTML → Figma build', providing clear when-to-use guidance. It also outlines post-use actions based on result.status but lacks explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, though the context implies it is mandatory.

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