Get Figma Components

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description adds minimal behavioral insight beyond confirming read-only nature ('List') and external dependency ('REST API'). It does not elaborate on behavior like pagination, rate limits, or data freshness, which would add value beyond the annotations.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, no redundancy, and front-loads the core purpose. Every word contributes value, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema) and the annotations covering safety and openness, the description is adequate. However, it does not describe the return format or clarify what 'published components' entails, which could aid an agent in understanding the tool's output without an output schema.

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?

Only one parameter (fileKey) exists, and its schema description ('The Figma file key') is complete. The tool description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without needing extra clarification.

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 clearly states the action ('List published components'), the resource ('in a Figma file'), and the method ('via the REST API'). It includes a prerequisite ('Requires FIGMA_TOKEN'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_local_components, which might also list components, limiting clarity for an AI agent comparing options.

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 mentions a prerequisite (FIGMA_TOKEN) but provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as get_local_components or get_figma_styles. No context on scenarios where listing published components is appropriate or when siblings are better suited.

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