get_local_components

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and the phrase 'all local components' suggests a comprehensive return, but no details about potential failures, rate limits, or return format are given. For a simple getter, this is minimally transparent but still lacks depth.

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, focused sentence that wastes no words. It clearly states the action and resource without filler, making it highly concise 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?

For a zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it tells the agent exactly what the tool does. However, it does not specify the structure or format of the returned components, which would be helpful since no output schema exists. Still, the tool's simplicity keeps the gap modest.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (trivially). Per the baseline rule for 0 parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate. The description adds no parameter details because none are needed.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') with a clear resource ('all local components') and scope ('from the Figma document'). It precisely distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_styles or get_annotations by naming a unique resource.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. It simply states what it does without contextual cues, so an agent would not know when to prefer it over other getter tools.

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