List pages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing the return shape (id, name, current) that no output schema provides. It omits auth/permission notes, but for a read-only listing this is a solid addition.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with no waste; the primary purpose and return contents are front-loaded, and the follow-up usage hint is secondary. Every sentence earns its place.

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 one-parameter, read-only listing tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description correctly compensates by naming the returned fields. It lacks any note on multi-file/session disambiguation, which is the only remaining 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the single optional 'session' parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about it (e.g. how to pick a file when several are connected), so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Every page in the document') and enumerates the returned fields (id, name, current), so the agent knows exactly what it gets. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the nearby figma_navigate_page, but the read/list framing is unmistakable.

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 states a downstream use ('Use a page id with figma_get_local_components to scope a scan'), which implies the tool is a discovery step. However, it never says when to call this rather than figma_get_metadata or figma_navigate_page, and there are no explicit exclusions.

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