figma_get_team_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the basic action without disclosing any behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether archived projects are included. As a read operation, safety is implied but not confirmed.

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, clear, front-loaded sentence. It avoids unnecessary words and precisely conveys the tool's primary function.

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 has one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations. The description does not mention return format, error scenarios, or any pagination behavior. For a tool that returns a list, the lack of output semantics is a significant gap.

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 schema has 0% description coverage and only describes teamId as a string. The description mentions 'in a team' which implies teamId identifies the team, but it does not explain how to obtain the team ID, its format, or any additional constraints. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the parameter name.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('projects in a team'), clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like figma_get_team_components or figma_get_project_files. The 'all' qualifier accurately conveys the scope.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as figma_get_project_files or figma_get_team_styles. There is no stated context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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