figma_get_project_files

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the operation ('list all files') but provides no details on return format, pagination, error behavior, or auth requirements. This is insufficient for a tool without schema or annotation support.

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, focused sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the simplicity of the operation.

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, but with no output schema and minimal description, the agent cannot know what 'files' includes (e.g., file IDs, names, types) or whether results are paginated. A more complete description would mention return structure or limits, especially given the large sibling toolset.

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 single parameter projectId is self-explanatory from the schema and tool name, but the description adds no additional meaning (e.g., format or usage context). Since schema coverage is 0%, the description does not compensate, but the parameter's purpose is clear enough to warrant a baseline score.

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 'List all files in a project' uses a specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource (files) and scope (project). It distinguishes from siblings like figma_get_file (single file) and figma_get_team_projects (list projects), making the tool's purpose 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention relationships to related tools such as figma_get_file or figma_get_team_projects, or any prerequisites or typical use cases.

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