Search Design System

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

Annotations only give readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, but the description adds substantial context: libraries the file doesn't use are invisible to the plugin, instancesNotScanned signals pages too large to scan, and it requires the plugin and Design mode. It even discloses that fileKey is accepted for compatibility only, which is real behavioral disclosure.

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?

Front-loaded with the search scope, then query semantics, then the call-before-use_figma directive, then caveats. Efficient overall, but the embedded reuse instructions (figma.getNodeByIdAsync, component.createInstance, instance.clone, getStyleByIdAsync) are dense implementation detail that could be trimmed without losing selection value.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming returnable entities, the IDs usable with the Figma API, and the instancesNotScanned signal. Combined with the prerequisites and library-visibility caveats, an agent has enough to call and interpret 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond it: 'Every word of query must appear in the name or description; leave it empty to list everything' explains matching semantics and the empty-query behavior that the schema does not. It says less about kinds/limit/allPages, which the schema already covers adequately.

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 file open in Figma Desktop) and then enumerates exactly what is covered: local components/component sets with properties and variants, used library components, paint/text/effect styles and variables. This distinguishes it cleanly from siblings like get_variable_defs or get_design_context.

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 routes the agent: 'Call it before designing with use_figma, and reuse what it finds', naming the sibling and the ordering. It also gives query semantics ('leave it empty to list everything') and constraints on library visibility, so the agent knows when results will and won't be useful.

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