figma_list_shaders

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the tool lists applied shaders with property metadata and layer usage, includes library shaders, and requires Desktop Bridge. It also clarifies that shaders cannot be created via the Plugin API, preventing a wrong expectation. It could add error behavior for missing bridge or scope effects on library results, but the core behavior is clear.

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 front-loaded with the core listing behavior and then adds the key usage note, creation limitation, and environment requirement in short sentences. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition or filler.

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 read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description explains enough about what is returned and what environment is required. It is nearly complete, though it does not clarify how scope or nodeId interact with library shader results, a minor gap given the schema coverage.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not mention the scope, nodeId, or fileKey parameters or add any filtering semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 and resource: 'List shaders' covering both applied shaders in the file and library shaders. It enumerates the useful return details (fills, strokes, effects, property name/type/default, layer usage), making the tool's scope unambiguous.

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?

It gives clear usage context by linking the listing to figma_apply_shader: 'Use the property names with figma_apply_shader.' It also states prerequisites ('Requires Desktop Bridge') and a limitation ('Shaders are created in Figma, not through the Plugin API'), but it does not explicitly describe when to avoid this tool or name alternatives beyond the apply step.

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