figma_compare

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that the tool 'generate[s] diff.png', which indicates a file-writing side effect, but it does not state whether files are overwritten, how screenshots are located, what happens if screenshots are missing, or whether the tool modifies any existing files. This is insufficient for an agent to predict 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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's core function and output. There is no filler or redundant phrasing, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 description is too brief for the full context. It does not explain how the tool relates to snapdom_screenshot (likely the capture counterpart), what the expected directory structure is, how threshold affects comparison, or what the tool returns. The schema covers parameter semantics but not the workflow or prerequisites, leaving an agent without enough context to invoke the tool confidently.

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?

All parameters have descriptive schema entries (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema; it mentions comparing and generating diff.png but does not elaborate on the threshold, output paths, or project path. Since the schema already documents these adequately, the description does not need to compensate.

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 verb ('compare'), a resource ('existing screenshots' of Figma components), and a concrete output ('generate diff.png'). It clearly differentiates from siblings: optimize_svg is for SVG optimization, snapdom_screenshot is for screen capture, while figma_compare is for visual comparison.

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 given about when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., that screenshots must already exist), nor does it reference sibling tools or exclusion conditions. The description only implies usage through the tool name and phrase 'compare existing screenshots'.

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