get_motion_styles

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

The readOnlyHint annotation covers safety, but the description adds meaningful context: the return structure, the significance of styleId, and the beta/editor limitation. This goes beyond the annotation and helps the agent understand the tool's behavior and constraints.

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?

Two focused sentences: the first defines the tool's purpose, the second covers return format and caveats. Every word earns its place; no fluff or repetition.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description fully compensates by describing the return object (styles array with styleId, name, description?, props?) and connects it to apply_animation_style. It also notes beta status and editor availability. For a simple no-parameter read-only tool, this is complete.

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?

With zero parameters, the schema provides full coverage. Per the rubric, baseline is 4 for 0 params. The description adds value by explaining the output structure, although parameter guidance is unnecessary here.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'Figma Motion animation-style presets', and differentiates from sibling tools like apply_animation_style by noting it returns the styleId used by that tool. This is specific 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?

It implies a clear workflow by stating these are 'the templates you apply with apply_animation_style' and adds a constraint ('only available in the Figma Design editor'). However, it does not explicitly list exclusions or alternative tools, so it's one step below fully explicit.

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