get_brix_component_details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It clearly lists what the tool returns (metadata, auto-layout, variants, properties, fills, strokes, effects, child structure), giving good transparency about the output scope. It implies a read-only operation with no side effects, which is sufficient for this context.

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 very concise: two sentences. First sentence declares purpose, second enumerates what is returned. Every word serves a purpose, no redundancy. It is well front-loaded and efficient.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no nested objects, read-only), the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, how to use the parameter, and what to expect in return. It is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. Minor improvement could include explaining the output structure format, but not necessary for completeness.

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% for the sole parameter `nodeId`, so baseline is 3. The main description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema's own description, which already explains the parameter and its usage. No additional semantic value is provided, so score remains at baseline.

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 verb 'Get full details' and the resource 'specific BrixUI component by Figma node ID'. It distinguishes from siblings: `list_brix_components` returns all, `search_brix_components` finds by criteria, and `get_brix_design_tokens` is about tokens, making this tool's purpose unique and precise.

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 implies usage when you have a specific nodeId and need full component details. The parameter description explicitly directs to use `list_brix_components` to find node IDs, providing clear context for when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast with siblings, leaving room for improvement.

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