Get one component

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds substantial context beyond that: responses for library instances are read-only, variants are answered from their set, references are paginated with limit and cursor, and editor support is noted as Design only with FigJam and Slides unverified.

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 information-dense and front-loads what the tool returns. The first sentence is long and packed, but every sentence carries useful routing or behavioral detail, with no filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values, and it does: property definitions, variants with values, default variant, driven layers, and paginated references. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile and editor availability, nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: it clarifies that nodeId can be a COMPONENT, COMPONENT_SET, variant, or INSTANCE and how each is handled, notes that the returned key is what figma_import_library_assets and figma_create_instance componentKey take, and explains that references is paginated via limit and cursor.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('One component's API') and enumerates the exact return content: property definitions, variants, default variant, and driven layers. It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming figma_get_local_components and figma_get_design_context, so an agent can select it without opening a schema.

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?

It explains which node types are accepted (component, component set, variant, instance) and how each is resolved. It also routes the agent to alternatives: figma_get_local_components for listing components and figma_get_design_context for an instance's current values.

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