figma_get_components

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It only states the basic action, omitting any behavioral traits like authentication requirements (though schema shows personal_access_token), rate limits, or error behavior (e.g., what happens if the file has no published components). The description adds minimal context beyond what is obvious.

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 of 8 words, front-loaded with the action. Every word is meaningful; no filler or repetition. It is highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description provides the basic purpose but lacks depth. It does not explain what 'published components' are in Figma, nor does it address potential error cases or authentication context. It is minimally adequate for a simple retrieval tool but not thorough.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the two parameters (personal_access_token, file_key) in detail. While it implies their purpose (token for auth, file_key for file identification), it adds no format, constraints, or examples. The description only partially compensates for the missing parameter documentation.

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 'Get all published components in a Figma file' clearly states the verb (Get), the resource (all published components), and the scope (in a Figma file). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like figma_get_node (specific node) and figma_get_file (whole file).

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, limitations, or context such as requiring a specific file structure or permissions. Compare to siblings like figma_get_file, which is for getting the entire file, but no explicit when-to-use logic.

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