Resolve a design reference to a component

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility, and it delivers: it discloses determinism, the three possible return statuses, what each status contains, and the critical 'never guesses' rule. This adds real behavioral context beyond the tool name and schema.

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?

Three sentences with distinct jobs: scoping the operation, specifying return outcomes, and adding a behavioral caveat. No filler, no repetition of schema details, and the most important distinguishing facts are front-loaded.

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?

The description explains return statuses well despite the lack of an output schema, but it leaves input-contract gaps: with five optional-looking params and no annotation, an agent isn't told which combinations are valid or what error behavior looks like. Strong on outcomes, weaker on operational prerequisites.

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 only adds the fileKey/nodeId pair example and does not clarify valid parameter combinations or precedence among url, fileId/nodeId, and name, but the schema already documents each parameter individually.

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 precise verb ('resolve') and resource ('design-tool reference to a registered component'), with concrete examples like Figma fileKey/nodeId. The determinism and status vocabulary further distinguish it from generic sibling search tools.

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 clearly implies the right context: use when you have a design-tool reference and need the matching registered component. However, it never contrasts with siblings like registry_find_component or registry_get_component, so the agent gets no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative-selection guidance.

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