flow_to_test_cases

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly describes what the tool does (converts and reports) but does not disclose whether it modifies the Figma file, potential side effects, rate limits, or output size. This leaves a gap in understanding the tool's safety profile and operational behavior.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action and then adds the auxiliary reporting. Every clause adds value, with no filler or redundant information.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must explain return values and limitations. It gives a high-level summary of outputs (test cases, dead ends, unreachable screens, coverage) but lacks detail on the output format, edge cases, or any constraints (e.g., file size, rate limits). This makes it adequate but incomplete for full operational autonomy.

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 all three parameters (file_key, node_id, access_token) are already documented. The description adds context about scanning prototype transitions but does not provide additional parameter-level details beyond what the schema already includes. Baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Converts') and resource ('Figma prototype transitions') with a clear output ('deterministic navigation test cases') and additional reporting ('dead ends, unreachable screens, and basic flow coverage'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like extract_flows or audit_accessibility.

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 (e.g., for validating prototype navigation and identifying coverage gaps) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned.

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