preview_figma_component_mapping

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the behavioral detail that matching occurs 'via federated docs,' but it does not disclose output format, error behavior, or what 'preview' returns. 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 a single, compact sentence with the verb and object front-loaded. There is no filler or repetition, so it earns top marks for conciseness.

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?

With 6 parameters, no output schema, and only a readOnlyHint annotation, the description is too thin to be complete. It does not explain what the preview returns (e.g., match candidates, confidence scores) or how the parameters affect behavior, making it insufficient for confident invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It only hints at figmaUrl via 'Figma node' and says nothing about depth, version, responseMode, maxCandidates, or debugTelemetry. This leaves the agent without critical parameter guidance.

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 uses a specific verb ('Preview') and identifies the resource ('how a Figma node matches a Design System component via federated docs'). This distinguishes it from sibling get/generate tools, though 'federated docs' is somewhat jargon-y.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_figma_components or generate_flutter_component_from_figma. The description implies a use case but provides no conditional context, exclusions, or alternatives.

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