Prepare FigCraft Web Handoff

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure, and it does reveal the deterministic planning behavior and that a manifest may be written. It does not state that this writes files to disk (implied only by the exportDir/overwrite params), nor whether existing files are affected, nor any permission or execution-cost considerations for a filesystem-mutating tool.

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?

Three tight sentences with the classification capability front-loaded and no filler. Slight density cost: 'FigCraft inspect_document' is referenced as a bare tool chain without explanation, but the structure is otherwise efficient.

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?

Seven parameters with none required leaves real ambiguity about which inputs are mandatory and whether the document/documentPath and inspectAssets/inspectAssetsPath pairs are mutually exclusive; the description does not clarify this. Since there is no output schema, the description should at least sketch what the export plan/manifest contains, which it does not.

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 100%, so parameter meanings are already fully documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description's 'raw inspect_document JSON, not a screenshot' restates the document parameter's schema description rather than adding new meaning, and it says nothing about resolving the document vs documentPath or inspectAssets vs inspectAssetsPath pairs.

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 specific verbs and resources: it classifies inspect_document layers into four named categories and generates a deterministic export plan plus optional JSON manifest. The purpose is unmistakable, but no sibling tool (e.g., inspect_ui_project, extract_design_tokens, sync_figcraft_assets) is referenced to help an agent choose between this and neighboring asset/design 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 one explicit usage rule — 'Supply the raw inspect_document JSON, not a screenshot' — is genuinely useful input guidance. However, there is no statement of when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g., extract_design_tokens or inspect_ui_project) or prerequisites such as needing a prior inspect_document call, so usage is only implied.

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