get_components

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state that the operation is read-only, whether it needs specific Figma permissions or a published library, what the return shape is, or whether results are paginated or scoped to the whole file.

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 non-redundant sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler. It is concise, but the brevity reflects missing content rather than efficient density.

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?

The tool is simple but has no annotations and no output schema, so the description should say more about what is returned (whether components and component sets are merged or separate, and how they are keyed). It does at least identify the two entity types returned, which keeps it above a 2.

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, fileKey, and the schema already documents it in full (100% coverage). The description adds no format hints or constraints on that key, so baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Возвращает компоненты и component sets файла Figma"), so the agent knows it is a read of design-library artifacts for one file. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_styles or get_variables, which fetch adjacent design data, so it falls short of 5.

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?

Nothing states when to call this instead of get_styles, get_variables or get_node_tree, or under what conditions components are not returned (e.g., no published library). With 22 siblings, some routing guidance was needed, and none is present.

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