bridge_to_codebase

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the matching behavior (exact, case-insensitive, partial filename matching), which is useful. However, it does not mention the output format, whether the operation is read-only, or any network/authentication dependencies beyond parameters. It gives some transparency but lacks a full behavioral picture.

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 sentence that packs the core purpose and matching strategies. It is reasonably concise without unnecessary details. It could be slightly more structured, but it earns its place.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., a mapping of component names to file paths). It only describes the scanning and matching process, not the result. This leaves a significant gap for an agent deciding whether to invoke the tool, especially when sibling tools may have clearer expected outputs.

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 75%, so the baseline is 3. The description itself does not elaborate on individual parameters; it only contextualizes the overall purpose. Since the schema already documents parameters well, the description adds minimal but non-zero value by implying how project_path and file_extensions relate to scanning.

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 a specific action: scanning Figma components and a codebase, then mapping component names to implementation files. It also specifies the matching methods (exact, case-insensitive, partial). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like map_to_react (framework-specific) and resolve_components (likely different approach).

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 when to use it (when you have Figma components and want implementation files), but it does not provide explicit comparisons to sibling tools or state when not to use it. For example, it doesn't contrast with resolve_components or map_to_* tools, which could serve similar purposes in specific contexts.

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