figma_get_library_items_used

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states the operation is a 'find' (implying read-only) but provides no details on output format, whether variables are included, or any side effects. The mention of 'components/styles' narrows the result scope but leaves ambiguity about what 'items' covers.

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, concise sentence with no redundant wording. It front-loads the action and resource, making it scannable and efficient.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter) but has no annotations and no output schema, so the description is the only context. It conveys the core purpose but omits critical details like return format, whether variables/effects are included, and any edge cases or limitations. For an agent to invoke this correctly, more behavioral context is needed.

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 coverage is 0% and the description does not explicitly explain the fileKey parameter. The phrase 'in a file' loosely maps to fileKey, but there is no direct statement that fileKey identifies the file to examine, and no additional context like expected format or constraints. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema's type/name.

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 clearly states the action ('Find') and the resource ('external library components/styles used in a file'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly name sibling tools for differentiation, but the focus on external library usage in a file is distinct from other library-related tools like get_library_collections or get_styles.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies a read-only analysis use case but does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or compare with get_library_collections/get_styles, leaving the agent to guess the appropriate context.

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