get_prototype_flows

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the key trait: 'Read-only.' That covers the safety profile adequately for a simple list operation. It says nothing about pagination, error behavior, or what a 'flow starting point' actually contains in the response, so the disclosure is minimal rather than rich.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its scope, with the read-only trait appended where it is easy to find. 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 one-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description states enough to invoke it safely. It is still thin on how the returned flows relate to the data from get_prototype_graph, which an agent choosing between the two would want.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already documents the file key format including the design URL alternative. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'List explicit Figma prototype flow starting points and their pages.' An agent knows exactly what data comes back. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling tools get_screen_interactions and get_prototype_graph, which overlap in the prototype-graph space.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus get_prototype_graph or get_screen_interactions, and no prerequisite or scope guidance. The only usage signal is the phrase 'starting points,' which implies a narrower scope than the siblings but is never made explicit.

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