map_to_swiftui

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

No annotations are provided, so the description alone must convey behavioral traits. It only describes outputs and gives no indication of whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, may hit rate limits, or requires any special handling beyond the required access_token. This is a significant gap for a tool that interacts with Figma.

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 action and target. Every phrase adds information without unnecessary expansion, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

For a complex tool with six parameters, three required, and no output schema, the description provides only a high-level summary of outputs. It does not explain the return format, behavior related to max_depth, or any constraints, leaving the agent to infer critical details from the schema alone.

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 the schema already documents all six parameters. The description adds some context by linking outputs (asset hints, color helpers) to the include_assets and include_color_assets parameters, but it does not go beyond what the schema already states.

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 ('Map') and a clear resource ('a Figma frame to a SwiftUI view tree'), and it names the key outputs (modifier suggestions, asset hints, generated color asset helpers). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like map_to_react or map_to_flutter, which target different frameworks.

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 for SwiftUI code generation but does not explicitly say when to use this tool over alternatives. With sibling tools like map_to_react and map_to_react_native, explicit guidance would help, but the framework name serves as an implicit differentiator.

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