listFigmaPages

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the tool returns file structure with all pages and frames, but does not mention output format, pagination, errors, or any other behavioral specifics. This is adequate but not rich, warranting a mid-range score.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, and contains no unnecessary words. Every word earns its place, making it very concise and well-structured.

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 tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, this description is largely complete. It offers clear purpose and usage guidance. A minor gap is the lack of detail about the structure of the returned data, but the phrase 'all pages and frames' gives a reasonable hint. Overall, it is adequate for the tool's complexity.

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% for both parameters (fileKey and figmaToken), so the schema already provides full meaning. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what the schema defines, so a baseline of 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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('file structure'), specifying it covers 'all pages and frames'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like listFrames and getFigmaFrame by positioning as an initial discovery tool for file contents.

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 'Use first to discover file contents' provides clear contextual guidance for when to use this tool, implying it is the initial step before exploring specific frames or components. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use, so it falls short of a 5.

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