figma_fonts

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

The annotations already declare this as a safe, read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description confirms listing behavior but adds no additional behavioral context such as return format, pagination, or font metadata; with annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate but minimal.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter list tool.

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?

The tool is simple and the annotations are rich, but there is no output schema and the single parameter is undocumented in the schema. The description only minimally covers what the tool returns and how filtering works, leaving some practical gaps for an agent.

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 description coverage is 0% for the single 'family' parameter, so the description must compensate. It only says the list may be optionally filtered by family and does not explain matching semantics, case sensitivity, or what a valid family value looks like.

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 (List) and resource (available fonts), and adds an optional filter. It is clear enough to distinguish this from the other figma_* tools, though 'available' is slightly ambiguous about scope (local, Figma, or remote fonts).

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 phrase 'optionally filtered by family' implies a basic usage pattern, but there are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidelines. For a simple listing tool this is acceptable, but it does not help an agent choose against any alternative.

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