Get conversion guide

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Return the rules,' clearly indicating a read-only, non-destructive operation. However, it does not mention authentication, rate limits, or side effects, though these are less critical for a static data retrieval 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?

Description is a single sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and the specific rules it returns. Every phrase (component mapping, table→AG Grid, etc.) adds value with no wasted words.

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 has no parameters, no output schema, and a clear static purpose, the description fully explains what the tool returns and the scope (Figma tree to specific tech stack). No missing information for an agent to decide to invoke it.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is effectively 100%. The description adds no parameter info, but the baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as per guidelines. No additional value needed.

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 returns conversion rules for a specific tech stack (React, Ant Design, AG Grid, ApexCharts, Tailwind). It lists specific rule types (component mapping, table→AG Grid, chart→ApexCharts, project structure), distinguishing it from sibling tools like convert_figma_to_react or get_figma_design.

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 use when needing conversion rules but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives (e.g., convert_figma_to_react). No explicit when-not conditions or prerequisites are given, relying on the tool's name and purpose alone.

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