get_design_context_compact

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains that the tool internally calls get_design_context and removes raw React/Tailwind passthrough, providing relevant behavioral context. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, permissions needed, or rate limits, which are not critical for a read-only like operation but could be improved.

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 sentence that conveys purpose, behavior, and output format without extraneous words. It could be slightly more structured, but it is efficient and front-loaded with the key action.

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 the absence of output schema, the description does a good job summarizing the output as 'compact markdown' with specific content types. With 2 parameters and no nested objects, the description is sufficiently complete for this low-complexity tool.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema provides, but the schema descriptions are detailed enough. The description briefly mentions 'layout, text, asset, and implementation notes' which hints at output structure, but does not explain parameters specifically.

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 the tool's purpose: to be called first for a Figma node URL, fetching design context and returning compact markdown. It specifies the verb 'fetch' and resource 'Figma node URL', and distinguishes itself with a clear role as the initial call in a workflow.

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 says 'Call this first for a Figma node URL', establishing a clear usage precedence. However, it does not mention when not to use it or alternatives, which is acceptable given no sibling tools exist.

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