figma_get_components

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds meaningful context by explaining what each source returns and the environment (REST vs. plugin), but it doesn't disclose output shape, required parameters like fileKey for source=file, or error behavior.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the core action and efficiently packs the three source variants. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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 simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the source semantics are well-covered, but the fileKey parameter is omitted and there is no indication of what return data looks like. Additional detail on required fields per source would make it more complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain each enum value for 'source' effectively, but 'fileKey' is entirely undocumented, leaving a gap in parameter understanding.

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 begins with a specific verb+resource ('Get components') and then elaborates on three distinct source modes, making the tool's scope clear. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like figma_get_team_components, the source breakdown provides enough differentiation.

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 gives concrete usage contexts for each source: file for REST published components, local for the current page in a plugin, and library for discovered instances on canvas. This tells the agent when to select a particular source mode, though it omits explicit alternatives or exclusion criteria.

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