figma_validate_layout

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention that the tool is likely read-only, what the output/return format is (e.g., list of issues), or whether it modifies anything. The only disclosed behavior is the types of checks performed.

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 very short and front-loaded, but it is a sentence fragment rather than a complete phrase. It conveys the core action but lacks any structural elements such as a subject or explanatory clauses, which makes it feel terse rather than appropriately concise.

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 simple tool signature (1 param, no output schema, no annotations), the description is still incomplete. It fails to explain what nodeId refers to, what happens when issues are found (return value, logging, side effects), and any limitations. The description does not sufficiently compensate for the lack of structured metadata.

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 has a single parameter 'nodeId' with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description does not mention or explain nodeId, so the agent receives no guidance on what this parameter represents or how to fill it. This is a critical gap for a required (even if marked not required) parameter.

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 'Check' and names concrete resources (overlaps, bounds, padding, alignment) that clearly define the tool's validation purpose. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like figma_check_accessibility, which focuses on a different validation domain.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. It does not mention whether the tool requires a selected node or how it relates to other layout or validation functions, leaving the usage context entirely implicit.

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