list_available_fonts

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get' clearly implies a read-only operation with no mutation, which is useful. However, it does not clarify what 'available' means, whether any file context or authentication is required, or what the returned font list looks like.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. Every part of the description earns its place by naming the action, the object, and the scope.

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 zero-parameter read-only list tool, the description is close to sufficient: an agent can infer the intended call and the general result. It would benefit from stating the output format or clarifying the source/scope of 'available fonts', especially since no output schema is provided.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is no parameter documentation burden and the baseline of 4 applies. The description appropriately says nothing about parameters because none need to be supplied.

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 retrieval action ('Get all fonts') and a clear resource scope ('available in the Figma file'), which distinguishes it from tools that list styles, components, pages, or variables. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling font-related tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool over alternatives such as type_list_styles, get_local_styles, or search_library. There are no conditions, exclusions, or sibling routing cues, so the agent must infer usage from the tool name.

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