list_motion_templates

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully bears the burden. It discloses that the templates are code-defined and not from Figma's API, which is useful behavioral context for an AI agent. It does not explicitly state it's read-only, but that is inherent for a list operation.

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 extremely concise with just two sentences that provide all necessary information without any filler. Every sentence adds value: the first states the action, the second provides important context.

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 parameterless list tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what is listed and why these templates are special (code-defined). No additional context is needed for an AI agent to use it correctly.

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 zero parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 4. No parameter semantics are needed, and the description does not add anything beyond the schema, which is acceptable.

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 tool lists built-in motion templates and their tunable params. It distinguishes these from Figma's native styles by noting they are code-defined, which adds clarity and differentiates from sibling tools like list_figma_animation_styles.

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 implies when to use this tool by explaining these templates are not available via Figma's API, suggesting it's the source for those definitions. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like list_figma_animation_styles or state when not to use it.

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