Figma to Spec

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that it produces routing_instructions but does not elaborate on side effects or what the payload contains. With annotations present, the bar is lower, but the description could add context about file creation (given spec_dir and force parameters) which is absent.

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?

Two sentences: the first states the purpose, the second provides usage instructions. It is appropriately sized, front-loaded, and every sentence adds value. No redundancy.

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 5 parameters with full schema coverage and annotations, the description is somewhat complete but lacks explanation of the tool's output format and the fact that it likely generates files (given spec_dir and force parameters). No output schema exists, so the description should provide more behavioral context. Adequate but has gaps.

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% with each parameter having a description. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema; it mentions the concept of routing_instructions but doesn't tie into specific parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema covers most details.

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 it prepares a structured payload for extracting design context from Figma, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning the production of routing_instructions for another tool, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar tools like sdd_figma_diagram.

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 a preparatory step before calling Figma MCP's get_design_context, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. Context is provided but lacks exclusions or conditional logic.

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