search_figma_nodes_by_name

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses search behavior and result contents, but it omits details like whether search is recursive, default limit behavior, and interaction between match_mode and ignore_case. Basic behavior is transparent, but not comprehensive.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action and result format. The final sentence is somewhat redundant with the opening, but it adds practical context for choosing the tool.

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 search tool with five parameters and no output schema, the description explains what the tool returns and what kinds of nodes it targets. It leaves some invocation details (pagination/defaults) to the schema, but the core calling contract is clear.

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 the schema fully documents all five parameters. The description adds only example use cases and does not materially improve on what the schema already provides.

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 specific verb and resource ('Search nodes by name'), enumerates matching modes (exact/partial), and specifies the return fields (IDs, types, paths). This makes it easy to distinguish from the sibling search_figma_frames_by_title, which targets frames.

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?

It offers a clear use case ('finding specific components, buttons, icons'), but it does not state when to prefer this over search_figma_frames_by_title or when exact vs partial mode should be selected. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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