validate_figma_to_code_index

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the non-destructive nature is known. The description adds context about the scope (global index and per-component docs) and timing, but does not disclose what validation checks are performed, what the return format is, or failure 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 a single, focused sentence that is front-loaded and contains no filler. It communicates the essential operation, scope, and timing efficiently.

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 no output schema, the description should at least hint at what the validation returns or how to interpret results. It also does not clarify success/failure behavior or prerequisites. The timing context ('before generation') is helpful, but the tool's behavior beyond 'validate' is under-specified.

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 provides no information about the two parameters. The parameter names and enum values are somewhat self-explanatory, but the distinction between 'standard' and 'compact' response modes and the effect of debugTelemetry is not explained, leaving a significant gap.

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 ('validate') and clearly identifies the resource ('global figma-to-code index and all per-component docs') and timing ('before generation'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that fetch, parse, or generate.

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 states when to use this tool: 'before generation.' This provides clear contextual guidance, though it does not name specific alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it.

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