figma_analyze_for_codegen

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Analyze node structure for best codegen strategy,' which implies a read-only operation but does not disclose what the analysis returns, whether it has any side effects, how 'best' is determined, or any error behaviors. Key behavioral information is missing.

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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It is efficient, but it is also under-specified. The sentence earns its place, but an additional clarifying sentence would not harm conciseness and would improve other dimensions.

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?

The tool has no output schema and parameters are undocumented. The description does not explain what the analysis returns, how to interpret results, or how it relates to sibling codegen tools like figma_generate_react. For a tool that likely produces strategic recommendations, this is a significant incompleteness.

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 0%, and the description adds no parameter information. It does not explain what nodeId refers to or how targetPlatform influences the analysis. The enum values are self-explanatory, but the meaning and impact of the parameters remain entirely undocumented.

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 a specific verb 'analyze' and a clear resource 'node structure' with a defined goal ('best codegen strategy'). It conveys the tool's core function but does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling analysis tools like figma_validate_layout or figma_get_dev_resources.

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?

Usage is implied: the tool should be used when preparing for code generation. However, there is no explicit mention of when to use it versus alternatives, when not to use it, or any prerequisites. The phrase 'for best codegen strategy' gives context but no actionable guidance.

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