figma_generate_swiftui

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. It only says 'Generate SwiftUI code from a node,' which reveals nothing about whether the tool performs a read-only operation, has side effects, requires authentication, or returns data in a particular format. The absence of any behavioral context makes it nearly impossible for an agent to anticipate the tool's impact or requirements.

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, well-formed sentence, which is concise and front-loaded. However, it is so terse that it borders on under-specification. It communicates the core purpose but omits essential details, making it minimally acceptable rather than genuinely helpful.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the generated code looks like, how the parameters affect the output, or what the agent should expect in the response. For a code-generation tool, this level of context is inadequate for correct usage.

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 4 parameters but 0% description coverage, and the description offers no explanation of what parameters like structName, includePreviews, or useSystemColors do. The only hint is 'from a node,' which corresponds to nodeId, but even that is not explicitly tied. The description adds no value beyond the parameter names.

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's function: generating SwiftUI code from a node. The verb 'generate' is specific, and 'SwiftUI code' differentiates it from sibling tools like figma_generate_css or figma_generate_react. It explicitly names the input resource ('a node') and the output type, making the purpose immediately obvious.

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 usage in contexts where SwiftUI code generation is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like figma_generate_react or figma_generate_html. No exclusions or conditional guidance are provided, so the usage context is only inferred from the tool name and description.

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