figma_list_open_files

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does meaningful work: it discloses the WebSocket multi-client transport, that each file with the plugin maintains its own independent connection, and that only one is the active target. It does not cover failure/empty states (what is returned when nothing is connected) or whether the listing is cached, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose before the sibling reference and the transport note. There is mild overlap between "shows which files have the plugin open" and the closing multi-client sentence, but each still adds distinct information, so it is tight without being minimal.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey return semantics, and it does at a conceptual level (open files plus the active target). It omits the concrete shape of entries — file keys/names or connection status fields — which an agent building follow-up calls would benefit from, so it is strong but not fully complete.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline is 4. The description correctly makes no attempt to describe inputs, avoiding confusion about whether file identifiers could be passed.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List all Figma files") and narrows the scope precisely to files connected via the Desktop Bridge plugin, then explains the discriminating content of the result: which files have the plugin open and which is the active target. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like figma_get_file_data or figma_get_status, which operate on a single file or plugin health.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: "Use figma_navigate to switch between files," giving an alternative and the condition that selects it. It stops short of covering the other adjacent tools in the connection family (figma_get_status, figma_reconnect, figma_reload_plugin), so it is clear context rather than a full when/when-not matrix.

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