getFigmaComponents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the action but does not describe the return format, authentication behavior beyond the optional token, potential large payloads, or any side effects. Minimal behavioral context beyond the verb.

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 short and front-loaded with the main action. The second clause ('For extracting design system') is slightly redundant with the parenthetical '(Design System)' but still adds intent clarification. Overall, it is concise with minor redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain what the tool returns and any important operational context. It does not; the output format is ambiguous, and the tool is not contextualized within the Figma sibling family. The description is adequate only for a simple read operation.

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 covers 100% of parameters with useful descriptions ('File key or URL' and 'API token (optional)'). The description adds no additional parameter guidance, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 identifies the action ('Get all components') and the target ('from file'), with a parenthetical hint about design systems and a purpose clause. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like getFigmaStyles by focusing specifically on components.

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 provides a general purpose ('For extracting design system') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as getFigmaStyles or getFigmaColorPalette, nor does it mention exclusions. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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