figma_get_component

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose safety and return behavior. It only says 'Get', implying a read operation, but does not explicitly confirm read-only, describe the return payload, or mention any authentication requirements. This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 one short sentence with no filler, making it easy to parse. It is appropriately concise for a simple getter, though it sacrifices completeness.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns and when to use it. It does neither, leaving the agent to infer the response format and differentiate from related tools. This is incomplete for a tool with even a single parameter.

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?

The single parameter componentKey has no description in the schema (0% coverage), and the description adds only 'by key' – essentially restating the parameter name without explaining the key format, where to find it, or how it's used. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 'Get a published component by key' – a clear verb+resource+scope. It differentiates from sibling tools like figma_get_components (plural) by specifying a single component lookup via key, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus figma_get_components, figma_get_team_components, or figma_import_component_by_key. The context is only implied by the word 'by key'.

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