figma_list_pages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it says nothing about whether this is a safe read, what the returned page objects contain, their ordering, or whether pagination applies. 'List' implies read-only but that is an inference, not a disclosure.

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 short sentence that front-loads the action and resource with zero filler. Nothing in it is redundant or padding.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally viable but thin. An agent can invoke it correctly, yet gains no information about the return shape or how results relate to other Figma listing tools.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify and the baseline of 4 applies. The description's reference to 'the file open in Figma' does usefully clarify the implicit input (the active file) that the empty schema leaves unstated.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List pages') and scopes it to 'the file open in Figma,' which is concrete. It does not, however, contrast itself with siblings like figma_get_tree or figma_export_json, so an agent must infer the boundary between listing pages and getting the node tree.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative among the six sibling tools. The only usage signal is the implicit scoping to the currently open file, which is inferred rather than stated as a condition.

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