extract_missing_states

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the process in a transparent way (find, compare, report) and mentions the confidence score. However, it omits details about the 'standard expected-state list' (its source or variability), potential limitations, and whether the operation is read-only. This is acceptable but not deeply transparent.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the core action and avoids any unnecessary words. It is well-structured for quick parsing.

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 tool has a simple schema, no annotations, and no output schema. The description provides a high-level overview and mentions the output format (missing state coverage with confidence score), but leaves questions about the exact structure of the report and the nature of the standard expected-state list. Overall, it's adequate but not fully complete.

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 schema covers all three parameters with clear descriptions, providing 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 function: finding components/component sets in a Figma subtree, comparing states against a standard list, and reporting missing coverage with a confidence score. It uses specific verbs and a clear resource (Figma subtree). However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like extract_variants, so it scores a 4 rather than 5.

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 the use case (auditing state coverage) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternative tools or any exclusions. There is no mention of alternatives or prerequisites, so it falls at 'implied usage' rather than clear guidance.

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