generate_component_docs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool combines local tokens, Figma data, and design system knowledge, and creates LLM+human-readable markdown. However, it does not mention any mutations, authentication needs, or potential destructive actions. The behavioral information is moderate but incomplete.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose, inputs, and output. Every phrase adds value, and it is front-loaded with the primary action. There is no fluff or redundancy.

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?

For a tool with 6 parameters (4 required), 2 enums, and nested objects, the description covers the main purpose and output. It does not explain error handling or behavior when optional inputs (like figmaComponentData) are omitted. However, given the tool's generative nature, the description is fairly complete for agent understanding.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context like 'combining local tokens, Figma component data, and design system knowledge' which relates to parameters, but the schema already describes each parameter clearly. The description does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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 'Generate comprehensive component documentation' and lists specific outputs (markdown with frontmatter, token references, code examples, accessibility info). It distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like search_tokens or analyze_coverage, though it does not explicitly name an alternative for similar 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?

The description says 'Perfect for design-to-development handoffs,' which implies a use case but does not provide when-not-to-use or alternatives. There is no explicit guidance on prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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