figma_search_components

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates that this is a search operation, which implies read-only behavior, but it does not explicitly state non-mutating behavior, case sensitivity, pagination limits, error handling for empty results, or whether it searches the entire file regardless of nesting. The lack of explicit safety or scope details is a notable gap.

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?

A single sentence that wastes no words, places the primary action and resource first, and gives illustrative examples inline. The structure is optimally scannable for an AI agent.

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 search tool with two required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essentials of input but omits any description of the return value, matching behavior, or failure conditions. An agent could call it correctly, but it would not know what to expect in response or how to interpret empty/error results.

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 schema already documents both parameters. The description adds meaningful detail for 'query' by clarifying that it accepts a component name or type with examples, but it adds no extra context for 'fileKey' beyond its identification purpose. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Search'), a clear resource ('components in a Figma file'), and a search criterion ('by name or type') with concrete examples ('button', 'input', 'form'). It conveys the core function well, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like figma_get_component or figma_get_file.

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 when to use the tool: when you need to find components by name or type rather than by a known ID. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it, no mention of alternatives like figma_get_component for direct component access, and no context about file structure or prerequisites.

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