inspect_layout

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavior disclosure. It adds context by stating the output is deterministic and a versioned JSON envelope, implying stability and predictability. It does not explicitly mention read-only behavior or side effects, but 'inspects' suggests non-mutating, and the return format description adds useful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and followed by a meaningful detail about output format. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to read and understand.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description provides a solid overview of what the tool returns, listing key data categories and the versioned envelope. Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, optional framework), the description is reasonably complete, though it could mention how parameters like max_depth or framework affect the output.

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 60%, with framework and max_depth lacking descriptions. The description does not elaborate on these parameters, nor does it clarify their purpose or allowed values. It focuses purely on output semantics, leaving the parameter behavior under-documented. This is a clear gap.

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 inspects a Figma frame and returns deterministic layout data, listing specific contents (node hierarchy, auto-layout, spacing, padding, constraints). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like audit_accessibility by focusing on layout data with accessibility warnings as a byproduct, making its purpose specific and unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied: use this when you need detailed layout information from a Figma frame. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or what alternatives exist, such as audit_accessibility for dedicated accessibility audits. The description lacks explicit when-to-use vs. alternative guidance.

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