figma_get_team_components

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds that only 'published' components are returned and that a premium plan is required. However, it omits pagination behavior, return format, and any other side effects or limitations, leaving significant gaps.

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 plus a plan requirement, with zero fluff. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Despite being a simple 2-parameter tool, the description is underspecified. It does not explain what the response contains, how pagination works, or provide any usage context beyond the plan requirement. Sibling tools with similar scopes likely have richer descriptions, so this one lacks completeness.

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 schema has 0% description coverage and the description does not explain teamId or pageSize. There is no mention of ID formats, defaults, or how pageSize affects results. The description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names themselves.

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 'Get published components from a team' clearly states the action (get), resource (published components), and scope (team), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like figma_get_components (file/global) and figma_get_team_styles (styles). It is specific and unambiguous.

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 mentions a prerequisite ('Requires Organization or Enterprise plan') but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like figma_get_components or figma_get_team_styles. The plan requirement implies premium-only contexts, but there is no direct comparison or exclusion.

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