get_local_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 correctly indicates a read-only 'get' operation and the 'local' scope, but it does not mention the return format, potential absence of components, or whether nested component structures are included.

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, focused sentence with no filler or repetition. Every word adds meaning: 'all', 'local', 'components', and 'from the Figma document'.

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 zero-parameter getter, the description is fairly complete, but no output schema exists and the description does not explain what exactly is returned (e.g., an array of component nodes) or how local components are defined. It is adequate for selection but minimal.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage. The description therefore needs no parameter details; the baseline score of 4 applies because there is nothing to clarify.

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 the verb 'Get' and the resource 'all local components' scoped to 'the Figma document'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_styles or get_variables, which target different entity types.

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 used when all local components in the current document are needed, but it provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling tool to prefer as an alternative. The context is clear, but exclusion criteria are absent.

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