resolve_components

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly explains the process: scanning a subtree or full file, resolving through the Figma component API, and returning source file and node. This gives a good sense of what happens, though it does not address rate limits or error handling explicitly.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and includes no redundant or vague phrasing. Every clause provides meaningful information about the process and output.

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 a modest 3-parameter schema and no output schema, the description is quite complete: it explains the input scope (subtree or full file), the resolution mechanism (component map and Figma API), and the output (source file and node). It could further detail the exact return format, but this is not a significant gap.

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 already provides descriptions for all 3 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about 'subtree or full file' which aligns with the optional node_id, but does not add substantive parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already offers.

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 uses specific verbs ('scans', 'resolves', 'returns') to clearly state what the tool does: it resolves Figma component instances to their source file and node. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like extract_variants or extract_design_tokens, which focus on different aspects of Figma data.

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 the tool is for resolving component instances to their source definitions, giving the agent context on when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternative tools, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites beyond the schema.

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