get_components

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'gets' components (read-only) and returns a list, but lacks details on authentication requirements, error behavior, pagination, or limits. For a single-file retrieval, this is minimal.

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 efficient, using a structured Args/Returns format without fluff. It front-loads the purpose in the first line. Minor redundancy: the Args section repeats schema info, but overall it's concise.

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 simple read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential: purpose, parameter meaning, and return type. However, it doesn't define 'components' or mention any limitations, making it adequate but not thorough.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'file_key' as 'The file key found in the shared Figma URL', which adds meaningful context beyond the schema's bare title 'File Key'. This is clear and helpful.

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 ('Get components') and the resource ('in a Figma file'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_node (which retrieves a single node) and get_workflow (which retrieves a workflow) by focusing on listing components.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. No context about prerequisites, typical scenarios, or when not to use it. The description only states what it does, not when to choose it.

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