list_figma_frames

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the inclusion behavior ('including frames inside sections'), the return contents, and the top-level frame scope, which is sufficient for an apparently read-only listing operation.

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 tight sentences, each earning its place: the action/scope, the use case, and the return format. The most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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 one-parameter list operation with no output schema, the description tells an agent everything needed: what is listed, how sections are handled, and what the response contains. No critical behavioral or output information is missing.

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%, and the only parameter (file_id) is already well documented in the schema. The description adds no extra parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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'), a precise resource scope ('all top-level frames in the file'), and adds clarifying scope details ('including frames inside sections'). It also names the return payload (names, IDs, paths), making the tool's purpose distinct from the sibling search tools.

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 a clear intended context: 'useful for getting an overview of the design structure.' It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name sibling tools, but the all-frames vs. search framing makes the appropriate use case reasonably clear.

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