figma_find

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to cover safety. It adds useful context by stating it returns ids, names, and positions, and implies a non-destructive locate-before-edit workflow. It does not disclose any additional behaviors like pagination, rate limits, or matching semantics beyond what the schema already covers, so a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action, scope, and filters; the second states the return value and intended use. Everything earns its place and key information is front-loaded.

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 read-only search tool with a fully documented schema, the description is complete. It covers what the tool searches, the filters, the return values, and when to use it. No output schema exists, but the description supplies the essential return info (ids, names, positions) and the default scope is in the schema. There are no missing prerequisites or side effects to disclose given readOnlyHint=true.

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% and every parameter (name, text, limit, scope, types) is fully documented in the input schema. The description only generically mentions filtering by type, name pattern, and text content, which adds no meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 starts with a specific verb 'Search' and clearly defines the resource and scope: nodes on the current page or all pages, filterable by type, name pattern, and text content. It also names the return values (ids, names, positions) and frames the tool as the way to locate things before editing, distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle metadata, export, or changes.

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 usage context: 'the way to locate things in a big file before editing.' It communicates this is a lookup/search tool, not a mutation tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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