Get file components

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

The readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations already cover the safety profile. The description adds the behavioral detail that only 'published' components are included and communicates the required scope. It does not describe response format or pagination, but for a simple GET the annotations plus description are adequate.

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, front-loaded line with the endpoint first, then the result, then the scope. Every word earns its place and there is no redundant content or boilerplate.

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?

This is a low-complexity read tool with one well-documented parameter and safety annotations. Still, there is no output schema and no mention of what the response contains beyond 'published components,' and no guidance relative to siblings, so an agent is left with a few open questions about usable response structure.

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 coverage is 100%, and the input schema already describes the one parameter ('Figma file key or URL') with validation and examples. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline of 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 and resource ('GET /v1/files/{key}/components') and clarifies what is returned: 'published components in a file library.' It is distinguishably file-scoped, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with related siblings like get_file_component_sets or get_team_components, so the distinction is inferable rather than explicit.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of a sibling, no exclusions, and no context such as 'use this when you need published components only.' The only additional note is the OAuth scope 'Scope: library_content:read,' which is an access requirement, not a usage guideline.

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