search_design_system

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the prerequisite (plugin and Design mode), a real limitation (libraries not yet used by the file are invisible to the plugin), and the meaning of the instancesNotScanned field. What is missing is anything about result caps or how the limit interacts with the per-kind results, so the behavioral picture is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Purpose and scope are front-loaded in the first sentence, and each following sentence adds distinct information (query semantics, when to call, reuse recipe, caveats). It is dense rather than padded, though the inline figma API call recipe is long and could be tightened without losing meaning.

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 five-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what is returned per kind, the matching semantics, when to invoke it relative to use_figma, prerequisites, and known blind spots. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the results.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description goes beyond it by defining query semantics (every word must appear in name or description; empty lists everything) and by clarifying the visible scope that kinds draws from. It does not add anything for allPages or limit beyond what the schema already says.

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?

States a specific verb (Search) and resource (the design system of the open Figma file), then enumerates exactly what is covered: local components/component sets with properties and variants, used library components with an instance to copy, and local styles/variables with default-mode values. This is enough for an agent to distinguish it from siblings like get_design_context or get_variable_defs without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly instructs 'Call it before designing with use_figma' and describes the follow-up reuse pattern (getNodeByIdAsync + createInstance, clone, getStyleByIdAsync, getVariableByIdAsync). It also states the query matching rule and the empty-query fallback ('leave it empty to list everything'), leaving no inference required.

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