list_pages

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and adds valuable behavioral context: it discloses the return format ('compact JSON with page names, IDs, and frame counts'), pagination behavior for large files ('automatically chunked' for >50 pages), and how to handle continuation ('Use 'continue: true' to get next batch'). It doesn't mention rate limits or auth needs, but covers key operational details.

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 well-structured with clear sections ('HOW IT WORKS', 'TYPICAL WORKFLOW'), front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence earns its place by adding operational guidance or workflow context without 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 read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description is quite complete: it explains purpose, behavior, parameters, and integration with siblings. It could slightly improve by explicitly stating it's a read operation (implied but not stated) or mentioning error cases, but covers most needs given the context.

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 thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by explaining the 'continue' parameter's purpose in the 'HOW IT WORKS' section, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema specifies. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specific action ('List all pages'), target resource ('in a Figma file'), and distinguishes from siblings like 'list_frames' and 'get_frame_info' by focusing on pages rather than frames. The opening sentence is direct and 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 'TYPICAL WORKFLOW' section explicitly provides when to use this tool (step 1 to see all pages) and what to do next (steps 2-3 with sibling tools 'list_frames' and 'get_frame_info'). This gives clear context and alternatives for related tasks.

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