generate_flutter_page_from_figma

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, so the tool's safe read-only nature is known. The description adds one behavioral detail: 'using DS components when matched,' indicating a matching behavior. However, it does not disclose what happens on no match, whether it writes to disk, or the nature of the output (code scaffold details), leaving significant behavioral aspects unexplained.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary padding. It is appropriately sized for stating the main function, though could benefit from an additional sentence on parameters or output without becoming verbose. It earns a high score for efficiency.

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?

The tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter documentation in the schema. The description only provides the high-level purpose and a hint about DS component matching. It does not explain what the generated scaffold contains, what constraints apply, or how the various parameters influence behavior, making it inadequate for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 0%, and the description only alludes to the 'Figma page/frame URL' parameter via the main purpose. The other five parameters (depth, version, maxNodes, responseMode, debugTelemetry) are entirely undocumented in both the description and the schema descriptions. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema-level parameter documentation.

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 verb ('Generate'), the resource ('Flutter page scaffold'), and the source ('Figma page/frame URL'). It also distinguishes from sibling tools like generate_flutter_component_from_figma by focusing on page-level generation and mentions the use of DS components, making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 implies the tool is for generating Flutter page scaffolds from Figma URLs, which provides clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., generate_flutter_component_from_figma) or provide exclusion criteria. There is no direct mention of alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios.

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