figma_get_component

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys a read operation and indicates what information is returned, but it does not disclose authentication requirements, error behavior, or whether the returned variant/property data is complete or paginated.

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 sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and adds useful detail about what the response covers, making it both concise and informative.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description provides enough context to understand the tool's purpose and expected returned content. It could have mentioned where nodeId comes from or clarified fileKey requirements, but these are minor gaps.

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?

The input schema already documents both parameters with clear descriptions, and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaningful parameter-level guidance, such as how to obtain a valid nodeId or whether nodeId needs encoding.

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 the specific verb 'Get', identifies the resource as 'a specific component in a Figma file', and lists concrete content areas (properties, variants, styling). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like figma_get_file and figma_search_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?

The description implies the tool is for retrieving details about an already-known component, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives such as figma_search_components for discovery or state when not to use it. There is no direct routing guidance, only an implied use case.

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