test_design_implementation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions 'visual regression testing' but does not disclose what happens during testing (e.g., diff report generation, pass/fail criteria) or any side effects (e.g., artifact creation).

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?

A single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the key action. It earns its place but could be slightly more structured (e.g., adding a hint about output).

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 no output schema and 3 required parameters, the description should explain what the tool returns, potential failure modes, or prerequisites (like a Figma access token). It lacks these details, making it incomplete for a testing tool.

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 description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the parameter names and schemas. It clarifies that figmaInput can be a URL or file ID, but that is already implied.

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 purpose: testing a component against a Figma design using visual regression testing. It distinguishes from sibling tools like analyze_figma_design or design_to_code, which have different purposes.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not specify prerequisites, scenarios, or when to avoid using it, leaving the agent to infer context.

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