figma_codegen_bundle

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing REST-only behavior, no plugin requirement, and a detailed list of return values. It implies a safe read operation but does not explicitly state side effects, rate limits, or error behavior, so it is not a 5.

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 well-structured with a front-loaded purpose statement followed by a concise bullet list of return items. Every sentence adds value, and the 'LLM should use this data' note directly guides the agent. 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 that there is no output schema, the description does a good job explaining return values (image URLs, screenshot, metadata). However, the 'compact tree' format is left vague—properties, nesting, and exact schema of the tree are not specified—so the LLM might need additional context to interpret it fully.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., maxDepth, screenshotScale are explained in the schema). Thus, it meets the baseline but does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 ('Get') and a clear resource ('complete design-to-code bundle'), and it distinguishes this tool from siblings by emphasizing 'single call' and 'REST-only, no plugin needed'. It also enumerates the main returned components, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when a full design-to-code bundle is needed in one call, and explicitly instructs the LLM to use this data to generate code directly. It does not, however, mention specific alternative tools or when not to use it, which would make it a 5.

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