get_component_by_name

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait beyond the schema: results come from cached data rather than a live Figma fetch, which implies possible staleness. However, it says nothing about what happens when the name is not found, whether matching is exact or fuzzy, or response shape.

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 efficient sentence with the resource and cache scope front-loaded and no filler. It is perhaps too terse for the amount of behavioral context this tool needs, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description should do more: it never describes what is returned (a component/node object?) or the not-found behavior. The cache-scope note is valuable but leaves key agent-facing details unstated.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already defines 'name'. The description adds no lookup syntax, matching rules, or case-sensitivity detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline of 3 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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (Figma component) and adds the scoping qualifier 'by name from cached data'. It is clearly distinguishable in intent, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like get_figma_component or get_cached_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 gives no indication of when to prefer this tool over get_figma_component, get_cached_components, or get_figma_file. The 'from cached data' phrase hints at a caching tradeoff but never spells out the condition that selects this tool.

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