list_animation_styles

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden and usefully explains the return shape and two non-obvious caveats: `name` is an i18n key and `props` entries are documentation strings not values to send back. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or that it has no document side effects, though 'List' strongly implies that.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed immediately by the required usage prerequisite and then the critical output caveat. Every sentence adds distinct value with no 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 zero-parameter list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is complete: it explains what is returned, how the returned fields should be interpreted, and when to call it. No additional structured fields are available to carry that information.

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 tool takes zero input parameters, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. Per the rubric, zero parameters yields a baseline of 4.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('List Figma's first-party animation styles') and immediately states what each entry contains: styleId and accepted props. It also distinguishes the tool from the mutating sibling apply_animation_style by framing it as a prerequisite lookup.

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 gives a clear when-to-use condition: 'Call this before apply_animation_style to get a real styleId.' However, it does not explicitly say when not to call it or what to do if a styleId is already known, so it stops short of a full when/when-not/alternatives statement.

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