Extract Observed Design Values

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the extraction scope and that it will not guess semantic color roles, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what permissions are needed, how maxNodes affects traversal, or what the response shape looks like.

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 two compact sentences with the core action and scope front-loaded. Every phrase contributes either extracted value categories, output primitives, or an important limitation.

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?

For a two-parameter extraction tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description gives a useful high-level output description and one key caveat. However, it leaves maxNodes unexplained and does not describe the token-candidate output structure, so it is only minimally complete.

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 only 50%: the document parameter is described as a raw FigCraft layer tree rather than a screenshot, but maxNodes has no semantic explanation beyond its numeric bounds. The description itself does not mention either parameter or explain how maxNodes constrains extraction.

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, 'Collect', and names the exact observed design values: colors, font families, weights, sizes, radii, and gaps. It also clarifies the return type at a high level, token candidates and CSS primitives, which makes the tool distinguishable from semantic palette tools, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools.

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 used to extract raw observed values from a FigCraft document, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives among siblings such as palette or inspect_ui_project. The only exclusionary note, 'Does not guess semantic color roles', is a limitation rather than routing guidance.

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