figma_list_text_styles

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds workflow context (phase) and operational pattern (use IDs in another tool) beyond annotations, but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like performance or empty results handling, which is acceptable given annotation coverage.

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 with no wasted words. The first sentence states purpose and output, the second provides usage context and follow-up action. Front-loaded with key information.

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 listing tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what it lists (local text styles), what it returns (IDs and names), and how it integrates (Phase 2.5, feed into figma_create_text). It is complete for effective use.

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?

No parameters exist, and the description adds value by clarifying output (IDs and names) and usage intent, fulfilling the baseline for a parameterless tool.

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 clearly states the verb 'list' and resource 'local text styles in the document', specifying the return of IDs and names. It distinguishes from sibling tools like figma_discover_library_styles by emphasizing 'local' styles, making the purpose explicit and unique.

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 provides strong usage guidance by specifying 'Call this during Phase 2.5 (DS inspection)' and instructing to use returned IDs in figma_create_text. While it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, the context implies when and how to use the tool effectively.

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