compare

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it notes the evaluation metrics (90% mutation recall, zero false positives), default behaviors (adaptive scale, auto-detected dev server, color scheme detection), resource costs (multiple runs increase cost), and the nature of the output (reportId). No annotation contradiction exists.

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 somewhat lengthy but front-loaded with the core purpose and key options. Every sentence adds value, though a more structured (e.g., bulleted) format could improve readability. It avoids redundancy with the schema.

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 16 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers input alternatives, output (reportId), dependencies (Figma MCP server), default behaviors, and performance guarantees. The only minor gap is the omission of the exact report schema, but that is delegated to sibling tools appropriately.

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%, but the description adds significant meaning by grouping mutually exclusive parameters (figma vs designImage, target vs component), explaining defaults, and providing contextual notes (e.g., 'no Figma token needed for designImage'). This goes beyond the schema's field definitions.

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 function: comparing a design against a rendered implementation and returning discrepancies. It specifies two alternative input methods (figma or designImage, target or component) and mentions the output (reportId), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_diff_report and list_issues.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use each parameter combination, including alternatives (e.g., 'Provide figma OR designImage', 'either target OR component'), prerequisites (no Figma token for designImage), and links to sibling tools for further processing. It also explains how to handle authentication via authState.

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