figma_list_targets

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive, so no credit is needed for safety. The description adds real value beyond them by naming the returned fields (fileName, current page, focused) and the cross-tool contract for `target`. It stops short of covering edge cases such as what happens when zero documents are connected.

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 sentences, no filler. The resource and its returned fields come first, and the actionable guidance follows immediately.

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, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields and explaining how the output feeds into other tools. For a zero-parameter discovery tool, nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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?

Zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description instead documents the `target` parameter semantics of the downstream LIVE tools, which is useful but does not affect this tool's own schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List every Figma document currently connected to this bridge") plus the exact fields returned (fileName, current page, focused). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like figma_get_selection or figma_inspect, which operate on content rather than the connection registry.

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?

Gives two explicit triggers: recovering from an AMBIGUOUS_TARGET failure, and proactively disambiguating when several files are open. It also closes the loop by telling the agent what to do with the result — pass the fileName as `target` on any LIVE tool.

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