figma_get_component_details

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that this is a retrieval tool and that results include variants, properties, and instantiation keys, but it does not cover permissions, failure behavior, or what happens when neither identifier is supplied.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a practical input-source instruction. There is no redundant or wasted text.

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-only lookup tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description gives a useful high-level summary of returned details. It still omits the return structure and does not clarify that at least one of componentKey or componentName must effectively be provided.

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 schema already explains that componentKey is preferred for exact match and componentName is the fallback. The description reinforces the source of these values from figma_search_components but adds no further format or matching semantics.

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 states a specific verb and resource: "Get full details for a specific component," and enumerates what is included (variants, properties, keys needed for instantiation). It is clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish this from similar siblings such as figma_get_component or figma_get_library_component_by_key.

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 gives input-source guidance by telling the agent to use the component key or name from figma_search_components, implying the search-then-details workflow. However, it does not state when to choose this tool over other component-related siblings or when not to use it.

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