figma_get_component_for_development

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds the default behavior specifics: 'Defaults to JPG@1x q70 (v1.8.0 context-safe).' This goes beyond annotations by disclosing default format, scale, quality, and version safety, fully informing the agent of the tool's 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 description is extremely concise with two sentences. It front-loades the purpose and immediately provides key details. Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary information.

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 tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the main purpose and default behavior. However, it could be more complete by briefly explaining the metadata fields or indicating the screenshot format details. Still, it is adequate for an agent to understand the core function.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The description provides default values for format, scale, and quality, but does not explain the meaning or usage of each parameter (e.g., nodeId, scale, format, jpegQuality). This adds some value but is insufficient to fully compensate for the lack of parameter descriptions.

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 that the tool retrieves component metadata and a base64 screenshot in one call, specifying its use for design-to-code workflows. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like figma_get_component and figma_get_component_image, which handle these tasks separately.

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 explicitly states 'For design-to-code workflows,' providing clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternative tools, but the use case is well-defined.

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