figma_get_local_resources

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

With no annotations, 'Чтение' usefully implies a non-mutating retrieval operation and 'локальных' establishes broad scope, but little else is disclosed. The description does not explain session scoping, connectionGeneration, cursor-based pagination, ID filtering, or field-selection behavior.

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 single Russian sentence is direct, front-loaded, and free of filler. Its brevity is efficient, although it is too terse to represent the four-mode schema completely.

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 tool with four schema variants, session scope, selectable fields, filtering, and pagination, the description supplies only a high-level purpose and even omits collections. The output schema removes the need to document return values, but the absence of annotations and operational or sibling-selection context leaves substantial 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?

Reported schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 despite the description adding little parameter documentation. Naming three resource types loosely relates to kind, but it adds no meaning for scope, fields, ids, limit, or cursor and overlooks collections.

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 clearly states a read operation over local components, styles, and variables, giving both a verb and resource scope. It does not explicitly distinguish the tool from siblings such as figma_get_nodes or figma_get_context, and it omits the schema's fourth resource kind, collections.

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?

Usage is implied: choose this tool to read local design resources rather than node content. There is no explicit guidance about when local resources are preferable, when another sibling should be used, or how to choose among components, styles, collections, and variables.

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