design_system_assets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool searches a 'configured portable bundle' with checksum-addressing, references importing via figma.loadBundleAsset, and prohibits drawing placeholders when a bundled asset exists. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema, though it does not explicitly state read-only behavior or describe return format.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. It contains no filler and every sentence earns its place: purpose, preferred ID usage, and integration/usage rule. This is appropriately sized 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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke the tool: it defines the search scope, asset types, preferred query source, and how to import results. It could mention return format or reload side effects, but it is largely complete for a search tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds limited parameter meaning: 'Prefer an exact semantic asset ID from design_system_plan' clarifies the intended use of the query parameter, but it does not elaborate on limit, reload, source, or category beyond what the schema already states. The schema descriptions are already comprehensive.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search the configured portable bundle for checksum-addressable semantic assets, component SVGs, icons, merchant marks, and raster images.' This clearly identifies the tool's function and enumerates asset types, distinguishing it from sibling tools like design_system_plan or figma_read, which serve planning and reading roles.

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 clear context for using the tool: prefer an exact semantic asset ID from design_system_plan, and import a result inside figma_write with figma.loadBundleAsset. It also states a behavioral rule ('never draw a placeholder when a required bundled asset exists'). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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