generate_pseudo_code_from_figma_frame

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool generates pseudo-code but does not describe output format, quality, limitations, or any side effects (e.g., rate limits, authentication needs). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior beyond its basic function.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence adds useful context without redundancy, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating use cases). Overall, it avoids unnecessary details and is efficiently written.

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 tool's complexity (code generation from design assets) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not address what the output looks like (e.g., format, structure), potential errors, or how to interpret the generated pseudo-code, leaving critical gaps for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 schema already documents both parameters (fileKey and nodeId) adequately. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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: 'generates JSX and CSS pseudo-code for a Figma frame or node' with specific resources (Figma file key and node ID). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'fetch_figma_node_image' by focusing on code generation rather than image fetching, though the distinction could be more explicit.

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 implies usage context ('Useful for converting Figma designs to code') and mentions applicability to 'specific components or frames', but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites. No clear exclusions or comparisons with the sibling tool are provided.

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