get_local_components

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing side effects and return behavior. It does not mention that the operation is read-only (though 'get' suggests it) or describe the return structure, leaving behavioral expectations unclear for an agent.

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?

A single clear sentence front-loads the operation and resource. There are no unnecessary words or redundant information; it is concise and well-structured.

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?

For a zero-parameter read-only listing tool, the description is adequate but minimal. It omits return value details and potential library-component caveat, but the low complexity and lack of output schema make the description sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 tool accepts no parameters, so the description doesn't need to explain them. The empty schema provides complete coverage, and the description adds no unnecessary param-related constraints. Baseline for zero parameters is 4.

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'), identifies the resource ('local components'), and scopes it to the Figma document. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_styles or get_node_info, which target different resources.

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 the tool is for retrieving all components defined locally in the document, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use it over alternatives or any exclusions (e.g., library components). The basic use case is understandable from the name and description.

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