map_to_react_native

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It lists output types (StyleSheet, component library suggestions, asset hints, prop types) but does not mention side effects, safety, auth requirements, or whether the operation is read-only. This is a significant gap for a tool that takes an access token.

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 purpose and then lists additional features. No unnecessary words or repetition; every clause adds distinct 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?

The tool has 7 parameters and no output schema, so the description should clarify what the agent can expect as output. It names several output types but does not describe their structure, format, or how they are returned. This leaves some ambiguity for an agent invoking the tool for the first time.

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 each parameter is already well-documented. The description does not add parameter-specific syntax or format details, though it subtly ties outputs to parameters (e.g., asset hints to include_assets). This maintains the baseline for high schema coverage without adding much extra value.

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 action ('Map') and the resource ('Figma frame') to a specific output ('React Native component tree'), with additional output details like StyleSheet-style and TypeScript prop definitions. This distinctively separates it from sibling tools such as map_to_flutter or map_to_swiftui by naming the target platform.

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 by specifying the target platform (React Native), making it clear when to use this tool versus platform-specific alternatives. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide exclusion criteria, so it stops short of full guidance.

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