get-ds-for-figma

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get ... information,' which implies a read operation, but it does not describe the return shape, error behavior, or what happens when the component is not found or mapped to a design system.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It is appropriately terse for a one-parameter lookup, though the brevity limits how much context it can provide.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify what 'Design System component information' includes and how this tool relates to the sibling tools. It does neither, so an agent can invoke it but cannot reliably predict the result or choose it confidently among 13 alternatives.

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%, and the single parameter, figmaComponentName, is already documented as 'Figma component name.' The description adds no additional meaning, examples, constraints, or formatting guidance beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and a clear resource, 'Design System component information,' with the input being 'a Figma component name.' The 'Design System' qualifier helps distinguish it from the generic sibling get-component, though 'information' remains somewhat vague.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus the many siblings such as list-components, get-component, search-components, get-props, or get-examples. The description restates the operation but offers no alternatives, exclusions, or selection criteria.

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