figma_list_files

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds valuable context about the source-specific behavior (local .fig files vs. recently viewed web files) and the totalUnfiltered field with query. This goes beyond the annotations and enriches the agent's understanding of what the tool does.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and then efficiently explains the key nuances of source and query. 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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain what the tool returns. It mentions searchedDirs and totalUnfiltered but does not describe the overall structure of the returned list (e.g., file names, paths, pagination). This leaves some ambiguity about the exact output format, making it only partially complete for a listing tool.

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 67%, and the description adds meaning to the source parameter by explaining the local/web distinction and to the query parameter by mentioning totalUnfiltered. It does not add meaning to limit, but limit is already described in the schema. Overall, it compensates well for the gaps.

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 action and resource: 'List Figma files.' It further distinguishes between local and web sources, making the tool's scope clear and distinct from siblings like figma_load_file or figma_search. The verb 'list' is precise and the resource is unambiguous.

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 provides clear context on how to use the tool (source selection, query behavior) but does not explicitly mention when to choose this tool over alternatives like figma_search or figma_get_tree. Usage is implied by the purpose, but no exclusions or alternatives are named.

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