figmad-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what the tool does (capture, analyze, detect UI components) and hints at output (capture ID), but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error handling. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 front-loaded with core functionality in the first sentence and adds specific details in the second. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 (capturing and analyzing webpages) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It explains the purpose and output format (capture ID), but omits details like supported webpage types, analysis depth, or error scenarios that would enhance completeness.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately focuses on tool functionality without redundant parameter details, earning a baseline score of 4 for zero-parameter tools.

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 with specific verbs ('capture', 'analyze') and resources ('webpage screenshot', 'DOM structure'), and distinguishes it from siblings by mentioning UI component detection and a specific return value for use with 'reconstruct_page'.

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 by stating it returns a capture ID for use with 'reconstruct_page', providing a clear alternative tool reference. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or comparisons to other sibling tools like 'export_image' or 'get_components'.

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