simplify_context

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it strips noise, collapses wrappers, groups repeated elements, and truncates deep hierarchies, warning that the output is lossy. It does not explicitly state side effects (e.g., no file mutation) but the transformation behavior is well described.

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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the primary purpose, and the second adds valuable specifics about behavior and intent. Every word earns its place.

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 description explains what it does but omits details about the output format, the role of optional parameters, and comparison with sibling tools. Given the absence of an output schema and moderate parameter richness, more context (e.g., return type, versioning of truncation) would make it more complete.

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 coverage is only 60% (node_id, file_key, access_token have descriptions), but the description adds no information about the undocumented parameters (framework, max_tokens) or even the described ones. It does not clarify how max_tokens affects output or what framework does, leaving a significant 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 a specific action ('Produces') and resource ('AI-optimized, token-efficient representation of a Figma frame'), and details the transformations (strips noise, collapses wrappers, etc.) that distinguish it from sibling tools like extract_design_tokens or map_to_react.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: 'Designed to fit within LLM context windows' implies usage for LLM-driven workflows. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for an agent to infer appropriate use.

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