figma_cache

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

With no annotations, the description provides important behavioral details: cache auto-expires after 5 minutes and it lists which tools are cached. This goes beyond the schema. It could also mention that 'clear' is destructive and irreversible, but the phrase 'clear all' implies this.

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 dense sentence, but it front-loads the purpose and packs in actions, expiration, and affected tools. It is efficient without being bloated, though breaking it into a short bulleted list could improve scannability.

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 there is no output schema, the description covers essential aspects: actions, expiration, cached tools, and an example. It omits the exact return format of 'stats' and any error handling, but for a cache management tool, the information is largely complete.

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 schema covers the prefix parameter with a description and the action enum, but the action parameter has no description. The tool description adds meaning to the action values with concrete examples (e.g., 'invalidate' with prefix 'get_components'), compensating for the schema's limited coverage.

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 manages library/component/style cache and enumerates the three actions. It distinguishes itself from all sibling tools, which focus on actual Figma operations, making the resource and verb unambiguous.

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 each action (stats, clear, invalidate) with a brief purpose, giving clear context for when to use each. It does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, but since there are no caching-related sibling tools, this level of guidance is sufficient.

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