figma_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation ('Search') but does not explicitly state whether it is read-only, how matching works (exact, partial, case sensitivity), or any limits/pagination. Minimal behavioral context is given.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, it is somewhat underspecified, so while concise, it sacrifices completeness for brevity. Still, the structure is clear 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?

For a tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain return values, search behavior, depth implications, or any constraints. The tool is moderately complex, and the description fails to provide sufficient context for an agent to use it confidently.

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 maps 'name' to likely the 'query' parameter and 'type' to 'nodeType', but provides no detail on 'depth' or the required 'fileKey'. The added meaning is partial and does not fully clarify parameter 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 clear verb ('Search'), resource ('nodes'), and scope ('in a file'), and specifies search criteria ('by name or type'). It distinguishes somewhat from sibling tools like figma_scan_nodes_by_types, but does not explicitly differentiate itself, so it loses a point for not naming 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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as figma_scan_text_nodes or figma_scan_nodes_by_types. The description only implies usage for name/type searches, without exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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