get_figma_components

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

The description adds a scoping constraint by specifying 'published' components, indicating that unpublished components are excluded. This is behaviorally relevant and goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, which already signals a safe read operation. However, it does not disclose response format or pagination behavior, though the annotation lowers the bar for such details.

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, front-loaded sentence of six words, directly stating the core action. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundant or filler content. It is optimally concise for the stated purpose.

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 tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers only the basic action without explaining key behavioral options like responseMode. It also omits any context about what the returned components look like or how the tool fits into the broader component generation workflow. The description is minimally viable but leaves clear gaps.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description only vaguely maps to the 'fileKey' parameter through the phrase 'Figma file'. It provides no meaning for 'responseMode' (standard vs compact) or 'debugTelemetry', leaving two of three parameters undocumented in prose. This is a significant gap given the low schema coverage.

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 ('Fetch') and resource ('published components') within a 'Figma file', clearly identifying what the tool returns. It differentiates from sibling tools like get_figma_styles and get_figma_images by naming 'components' as the target. This is a clear and specific purpose statement.

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 one needs published components from a Figma file, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives such as get_figma_styles or get_figma_nodes. No exclusions or alternative tool references are given, leaving usage guidance implicit rather than explicit.

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