search_figma_frames_by_title

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the tool returns matching frames with IDs and paths, which is helpful, but it does not mention match-mode behavior, case sensitivity defaults, result limiting, or the non-mutating nature of the operation. 'Search' implies read-only, but this is not explicit.

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 two concise sentences with no wasted content. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds a brief use case and return-value summary.

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 schema covers all parameters, and the description mentions the output kind (IDs and paths), but with no output schema and no annotations, the description is still fairly thin. It does not clarify when to choose this tool over search_figma_nodes_by_name, nor does it describe result shape or matching semantics beyond 'by title.'

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 100%, so all five parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage, but it does not go beyond the baseline.

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 and resource: searching frame nodes by title. It also gives a sense of what kinds of frames are useful to find ('screens, pages, or components'). However, it does not differentiate it from the sibling tool search_figma_nodes_by_name, which may cover overlapping intent.

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 implies usage with 'Useful for finding specific screens, pages, or components,' but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or comparisons with siblings like search_figma_nodes_by_name or list_figma_frames. The guidance is present only by implication.

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