figma_get_team_projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no pagination behavior, no auth/scope requirements, no hint about what a project object contains or what an empty result means.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficiently structured, though the brevity comes at the cost of omitting useful detail rather than being tightly complete.

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 read tool with no output schema and no nested objects, the annotations cover safety, but the description still omits the undocumented auth parameter and any notion of return shape or pagination. An agent could call it, but not confidently for a team with many projects.

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 coverage is only 50%: team_id is documented in the schema, but personal_access_token has no description anywhere and the description does not compensate by explaining that it is the auth credential. With half the parameters undocumented, the description leaves a real gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('List all projects for a Figma team'), making the operation unambiguous. It does not differentiate from Figma siblings such as figma_get_file or figma_get_components, so an agent must infer from names alone which one returns projects.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus other Figma tools, no prerequisites, and no mention that a team_id must come from the team URL path rather than a file or node ID. The agent gets a purpose but no routing logic.

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