figma_list_flows

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavioral point: declared connections are not evidence of observed runtime behavior. However, it offers no explanation for the surprising readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false on a "List" tool, such as network or session side effects.

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 sentences with no filler: the scope first, then the caveat. Every sentence is meaningful, and the core purpose is front-loaded. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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?

This is a four-parameter tool with no documented parameters, no output schema, and remote open-world access. The description gives no return-shape information and no guidance on identifier selection. It is nowhere near sufficient for an agent to call the tool confidently without trial and error.

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 schema has four parameters with zero description coverage, so the description must compensate, yet it explains none of them. It never says which identifier is required, whether url, fileKey, nodeId, and snapshotId are alternatives or can be combined, or what "saved design" means for snapshotId. The only hint is the phrase "saved design".

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 prototype connections declared in the saved design." That is far more precise than the name alone, since "flows" could mean many things. It stops short of 5 because it never contrasts itself with close siblings such as figma_list_screens or figma_list_snapshots, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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 description gives no when-to-use guidance: it names no alternatives, no prerequisites, and no conditions under which another sibling tool would be the better choice. The second sentence is an epistemic caveat rather than usage direction. An agent can infer that this tool lists declared prototype links, but must guess when that matters.

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