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 states the tool performs comparison and syncing, which implies read and write operations, but doesn't clarify permissions, side effects (e.g., whether syncing overwrites data), error handling, or output format. For a tool with potential mutative behavior and zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 highly concise and well-structured: a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose and capabilities without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the main action ('Compare and sync') and adds necessary detail about extraction sources. Every word earns its place, making it easy for an agent 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?

Given the tool's complexity (involving cross-platform syncing) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers what the tool does and its input sources, but doesn't address behavioral aspects like mutability, error cases, or result format. For a tool with no structured safety or output hints, more completeness would be beneficial, but it meets a basic threshold.

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 adds value by explaining the tool's functionality and sources (Figma variables/styles or codebase analysis), which provides context beyond the empty schema. Since there are no parameters to document, a baseline of 4 is appropriate, as the description compensates adequately for the lack of structured input details.

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: 'Compare and sync design tokens between Figma and code.' It specifies the verb ('compare and sync'), resource ('design tokens'), and scope ('between Figma and code'), making the intent unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_styles' or 'get_variables', which might overlap in token extraction, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 provides minimal usage guidance: it mentions the tool can extract tokens 'from Figma variables/styles or from codebase analysis,' implying two possible sources. However, it offers no explicit advice on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'get_styles' for styles only), no prerequisites, and no exclusions. This leaves the agent with little direction on optimal tool selection.

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