figma_generate_html

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the basic action. It does not explain what 'semantic' means, whether styles are included by default, what node types are supported, or how the HTML output is returned (inline string, file, etc.). This is a significant transparency gap for a codegen 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?

The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse. However, it is under-specified for the tool's complexity, so while structurally efficient, the extreme brevity borders on under-specification rather than conciseness.

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 three parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and many sibling codegen tools, yet the description provides no return value details, parameter semantics, or behavioral nuances. It is incomplete for an agent to invoke correctly without additional assumptions.

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 information about the three parameters (nodeId, semanticTags, includeStyles). The parameter names hint at their role, but the description does not compensate for the lack of documentation, leaving the agent to guess how each parameter affects generation.

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 generates semantic HTML from a node, using a specific verb ('generate') and resource ('node'). It distinguishes itself from sibling codegen tools like generate_css and generate_react by naming the output format (HTML), though it does not explicitly contrast with those alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling codegen tools (e.g., generate_css, generate_react, generate_swiftui). The intended use case is only implied by the phrase 'generate semantic HTML,' with no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative recommendations.

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