search_components

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: result limits (top 20 with total count), pagination mechanism ('continue: true'), and refinement suggestions for large result sets. It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions, but covers core operational behavior adequately.

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 well-structured with clear sections ('HOW IT WORKS', 'TYPICAL WORKFLOW'), front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds practical value without redundancy. It's appropriately sized for a 5-parameter search tool.

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?

Given the complexity (search with filters and pagination), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a good job covering key aspects: purpose, behavioral constraints, and usage workflow. It could improve by detailing the output format or error cases, but it's largely complete for guiding effective use.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, mentioning 'continue: true' for pagination and implying usage of 'page_name' and 'type' for refinement, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool searches for components by name across a Figma file, with specific details about scope (entire file or specific page) and resource (components). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_frames' or 'analyze_page_structure' beyond the search functionality.

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 'TYPICAL WORKFLOW' section provides clear context for when to use this tool in a sequence (search, refine, get details) and mentions refinement options when results exceed 20. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings, but the workflow guidance is practical.

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