figma_search_components

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds that the tool returns nodeIds and names, plus notes the limitation of no REST API. This provides useful behavioral context beyond the annotation, such as the non-REST nature and return data shape.

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, using three short sentences that front-load the core purpose, return type, and key usage parameters. No redundant information is present.

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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose and two key parameters but omits details on currentPageOnly and limit. It also doesn't specify pagination or result format beyond nodeIds and names. While the core intent is clear, the lack of completeness for all parameters reduces its utility for agent invocation.

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 description adds meaning to the query parameter by stating search is by name, and clarifies the role of fileKey and figmaUrl. However, it does not explain currentPageOnly or limit parameters, and schema coverage is 40%, so the description only partially compensates for missing schema 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 the tool searches local components by name and returns nodeIds and names. It distinguishes from siblings like figma_search_assets by specifying 'local components'. However, it could be more explicit about the scope of search (e.g., within a file or project).

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 advises using fileKey or figmaUrl to target a specific file, which provides clear usage context. Mentioning 'No REST API' implicitly guides agents away from using this tool for REST API purposes, serving as an alternative indicator. It does not, however, explicitly contrast with similar search tools.

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