map_to_flutter

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what is generated (widget tree, suggestions, hints) but does not state whether the tool is read-only, how it accesses Figma (e.g., API calls), or any side effects/limitations. The read-only nature is only implied by the verb 'map'.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then lists output features. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or redundancy. The structure is efficient and easy to scan.

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 has 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a high-level overview but lacks key details such as the output format (code, JSON, etc.), error behavior, and how the output components are structured. The list of outputs helps, but the description is not fully complete for an agent to invoke it confidently.

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 parameters are already well-documented. The description adds some context by linking 'Material or Cupertino' to component_library, 'asset hints' to include_assets, and 'ThemeData suggestions' to include_theme_data, but it does not add meaning beyond these implicit mappings.

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 maps a Figma frame to a Flutter widget tree, with a specific verb ('map'), resource ('Figma frame'), and target ('Flutter widget tree'). It also enumerates output types (Material/Cupertino suggestions, constructor-style properties, asset hints, ThemeData suggestions), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like map_to_react or map_to_swiftui.

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 the tool (for Flutter conversion) through the name and content, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention exclusions. No reference to sibling tools or conditions is provided, so usage guidance is only implied.

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