figma_get_code_connect_map

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'Map' without indicating whether the operation is read-only, what it returns, or whether it requires a specific node selection. It doesn't explain the nature of the mapping or any side effects.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the primary verb and object. It is free of fluff, but it omits useful details that would make it more informative without adding significant length.

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 lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter documentation, the description is underspecified. It doesn't explain what the mapping looks like, how to interpret the result, or any limitations. For a tool with this complexity, more context is needed.

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 lists one optional parameter 'nodeId' with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description does not mention the parameter or explain how it affects the mapping. Since the parameter name is self-explanatory, it gains a slight pass, but the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 the specific verb 'Map' and identifies the resource: 'Figma components to source code locations.' This clearly conveys the tool's core function. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like figma_get_dev_resources or figma_match_components, which could overlap in purpose.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, selection requirements, or scenarios where other tools would be more appropriate. The description offers no usage context.

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