list_team_projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the key behavioral detail that it uses the configured default team when team_id is absent—valuable context not present in annotations.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero waste. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the default-team behavior is stated succinctly.

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 simple list tool with one optional parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering read-only behavior, the description covers purpose and default behavior adequately. It does not describe the return format, but that is not critical given no output schema exists and the operation is straightforward.

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 coverage is 100% (team_id has a description), and the description adds meaning by explaining the optional nature and default behavior. This goes beyond the schema's basic field description, giving the agent practical invocation guidance.

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 ('all projects in a Figma team'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like list_project_files (files in a project) and search_projects (search). It also mentions the fallback default team, which further clarifies 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?

Provides clear context that this is the tool for listing all projects in a team, and notes the optional team_id with a default. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling list makes the distinction obvious.

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