List team projects

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the auth scope (projects:read) and the visibility constraint ('projects visible to the PAT'), which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't disclose pagination, result format, or error behavior, which would be valuable for a list endpoint.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the endpoint and purpose. Every word earns its place: endpoint, visibility, parameter guidance, and scope. No filler or redundancy.

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 simple list operation with no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation details: how to identify the team, the required scope, and what the tool returns (projects visible to the PAT). It doesn't mention pagination, but given the low complexity and openWorldHint, this is a minor gap. The description is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.

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 schema already documents both parameters ('team' and 'team_id'). The description adds the FIGMA_TEAM_ID environment variable alternative, which is not in the schema, providing a small extra hint. This is slightly above the baseline but not substantial enough to warrant a 4.

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 clearly states the action (list projects) and the resource (team projects), and includes the specific HTTP endpoint. It also specifies the auth scope, which helps an agent understand exactly what it returns. While it doesn't name sibling tools, the verb+resource combination 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?

It provides clear context on how to specify the team (via the 'team' parameter or the FIGMA_TEAM_ID environment variable) and notes the required scope. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, but the purpose is obvious from the name and description, so no exclusions are needed.

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