figma_scan_codebase

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool scans a local directory and returns a list, implying a read-only operation. The supported frameworks are enumerated, giving a clear scope. It does not explicitly state 'does not modify files' or discuss performance implications, but the term 'scan' reasonably implies non-destructive behavior and the return type is clear.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, followed by return value and usage context. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 is moderately complex (multiple frameworks, optional parameters) but the description covers the main purpose, input scope, output format, and when to use it. Since there is no output schema, explaining the return list is valuable and done effectively. Minor gaps exist around edge cases (e.g., default behavior for deeply nested directories), but the schema covers maxDepth. Overall, sufficient for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 description does not add significant detail beyond the schema; it repeats the framework list that is already in the 'frameworks' enum. The directory and maxDepth parameters are well described in the schema. No special meaning is added by the tool description.

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 states a specific action: 'Scan a local codebase directory for UI components' and lists the supported frameworks. It also explicitly differentiates from figma_match_components by indicating this is the precursor step. The return value (list of components with file paths and frameworks) is clearly specified.

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 explicit usage context: 'Use this before figma_match_components to find code-to-design mappings.' This tells the agent when to invoke this tool in a workflow. However, it does not mention alternatives for other scanning tasks (e.g., scanning Figma nodes instead of a local codebase), so it lacks full when-not/exclusion guidance.

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