searchFigmaFrames

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It adds useful behavioral details: case-insensitive matching and scope across all pages. However, it does not describe the return format, whether partial matches are supported, pagination behavior, or authentication requirements (noting figmaToken is optional in schema). These gaps limit transparency.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action verb and resource, and contains zero filler. Every word adds value (case-insensitive, across all pages).

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must be self-sufficient. It covers core purpose and two behavioral traits, but leaves out important context such as what the return value looks like, whether the search is partial or exact, and how results are ordered. For a simple search tool, this is adequate but not complete.

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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for each parameter (fileKey, figmaToken, searchQuery). The description does not add additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already handles parameter semantics.

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 states a specific action ('Search') on a specific resource ('frames/components') with a clear scope ('by name') and an added constraint ('Case-insensitive across all pages'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like listFrames (which lists all) and getFigmaComponents (which likely lists components 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 implies usage: use this when you need to find frames/components by name. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives like listFrames for browsing all frames or getFigmaFrame for fetching by ID. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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