List local styles

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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only profile, but the description adds material behavior: the scope limit (local file only), the empty-result semantics for library-styled files, the pagination mechanic, and the shape of each returned item (key, one-line value, description, bound variables). That is substantial disclosure beyond the 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?

Front-loads the resource and scope, then layers return shape, exception handling, pagination and editor support in a compact block with no filler sentences. The four quoted value examples are dense but each illustrates a distinct style type, so they earn their space.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so (item fields plus concrete value examples). Between the local-only caveat, the library-style fallback route, pagination, and editor coverage, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly and interpret the result.

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 coverage is 100%, so type/limit/cursor/session are already documented, and the description largely restates them ("Paginated with `limit` + `cursor`" repeats the schema's nextCursor wording). The one added nuance, "pick a style by what it is, not by its name," is interpretation guidance rather than parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 holds.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource (list the paint/text/effect/grid styles defined in THIS file) and enumerates the four style types, so an agent knows exactly what is returned. It also differentiates itself from siblings (figma_get_variable_defs, figma_get_design_context, figma_get_local_components) without needing to open either schema.

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?

States an explicit when-not condition ("Local only: a library-styled file returns count 0") and names the alternative tools to use instead for library styles. It also adds an editor support note ("Editors: Design; unverified: FigJam, Slides"), which is real routing guidance absent anywhere else.

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