list_figma_animation_styles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It describes a read operation but does not mention whether it requires a specific file context, whether it returns all styles globally or per document, or any side effects. For a listing tool, this is minimal transparency.

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 a single sentence that conveys the purpose and key output fields without any wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (no parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: what it lists and what it returns. However, it lacks context about the scope (e.g., current document) and the fact that it's a Beta feature, which could affect reliability. The sibling tools offer context, but the description itself is slightly incomplete.

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 input schema has no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter information (none needed) but does describe the output fields, which is useful. However, this dimension specifically concerns parameters, so no extra credit for output.

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 that the tool lists Figma's native animation styles, including the returned fields (styleId, name, props). The verb 'List' and resource 'animation styles' are specific. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'list_motion_templates', which could be confused as similar.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'apply_animation_style' or 'list_motion_templates'. No prerequisites, context, or exclusions are mentioned. The agent is left to infer usage from context.

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