The designer’s saved set

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the curated, folder-scoped nature of the data, but does not disclose what happens with an unspecified folder, the response shape, or whether the listing is a flat array or grouped structure. This is acceptable for a simple read-only list, but not richly transparent.

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 filler, and the central concept—curated nodes by folder—is front-loaded. The second sentence adds practical guidance about why this tool is useful rather than redundant praise. 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?

For a read-only tool with one optional parameter, an understood resource, and no output schema, the description gives enough conceptual orientation for an agent to invoke it correctly. It could be slightly more complete by stating the default folder behavior or the return shape, but the low complexity and annotation coverage keep this gap minor.

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 only parameter, folder, is fully described in the schema as 'Restrict to one folder', so schema coverage is 100%. The description's mention of 'by folder' reinforces the parameter's meaning but adds no syntax, value formats, or edge-case behavior beyond the schema. This matches the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 identifies the resource as 'the nodes the designer curated in the panel' and the operation as listing them 'by folder', which is specific and distinguishes it from broader page- or library-oriented tools. It does not use an explicit imperative like 'list', but the meaning is clear. Its sibling figma_list_library points to a different content type, so the curation focus provides enough differentiation.

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 phrase 'usually a better starting point than the whole page' gives an implied use case: prefer this when you want the designer-curated shortlist rather than everything. However, it does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, so the agent is left to infer routing from the sibling tool names rather than explicit guidance.

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