Convert a whole Figma file → React project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It details key behaviors: returns a summary only, asks about mobile export with elicitation default, writes to disk, and accepts various URL formats. Missing details like destructive writes or error handling, but overall informative.

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 paragraph that efficiently covers the core process and key decisions. While it is somewhat long, every sentence adds useful context. Could be more structured with bullet points, but it is clear and front-loaded.

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 tool's complexity (7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the main functionality, output format (summary), mobile handling, and tech stack. Missing details on failure modes or size limits, but sufficient for most use cases.

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 86%, high, so baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond schema by explaining default behaviors (e.g., exportMobileToReactNative elicitation), contextualizing depth and mobileMaxWidth, and clarifying figmaUrl usage with node-id. Justifies a 4.

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 end-to-end conversion from a Figma file to a React project, listing specific actions (fetch, extract tokens, scaffold, generate components) and distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_conversion_guide or generate_component.

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 explains when to use this tool (for whole-file conversion) and mentions optional scope narrowing via node-id, but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide direct comparisons with siblings. However, the implicit context is sufficient for an agent to infer usage.

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