figma_get_component

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose a real operational prerequisite: the Figma Desktop Bridge plugin must be running for complete data on local/unpublished components. It also notes that enrich only applies to the metadata format. It never states read-only semantics or what happens on failure, but the prerequisite disclosure is genuinely valuable 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?

Content is front-loaded: what it does, then the format split, then prerequisites, then the alternative. The IMPORTANT/TIP sentences are dense but each carries actionable information rather than filler; minor wordiness in restating the formats.

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 read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers both return shapes (rich documentation vs. node-tree spec), the setup prerequisite, and the better sibling for bulk retrieval. Only the safety profile and error behavior are left implicit.

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 does explain the intent behind the format enum in richer terms than the schema and mentions that fileUrl is auto-detected from the WebSocket bridge, but it doesn't document nodeId format (e.g. '123:456'), which the schema already covers.

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 first sentence names a specific verb and resource with scope ('Get a SINGLE component's metadata or reconstruction specification'), and the two named output formats make the function concrete. It does not, however, differentiate itself from near-siblings like figma_get_component_details or figma_get_component_for_development, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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?

It clearly states which format applies to which goal ('metadata' for style guides/references, 'reconstruction' for programmatic creation) and names an alternative (figma_get_design_system_kit) for the all-components case. It stops short of full when-not guidance, e.g. no contrast with get_component_details or guidance on when a component is better fetched for development.

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