Plumb · components

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it notes the tool requires the Plumb plugin ('Plugin path; needs the Plumb plugin paired') and explains that the health parameter is purely additive. No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and each sentence adds value, but it is somewhat lengthy. Could be more concise while retaining key details.

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, the description explains what each component and instance carries (instance count, component id) and details on the health report. This is sufficient for a listing tool, though it could mention the response structure more explicitly.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the description still adds value for both parameters: for 'page' it notes it's a massive token saver on files with many components, and for 'health' it clarifies default false and no shape change. This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 it lists every Figma component definition and instance usages, distinguishing it from sibling tools like plumb_outline or plumb_node, and specifies its utility for understanding the design system before building.

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 clear context for when to use the tool ('useful for understanding the design system before building') and explains the optional health report. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or suggest alternatives.

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