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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals one behavioral fact, 'Path discarded,' but does not state whether the tool validates, normalizes, returns extracted components, or rejects non-Figma URLs. 'Parse' implies a read-only operation, but the output contract and error behavior remain opaque.

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 extremely compact, with no filler or repeated information. The core action is front-loaded and the extra note about discarding the path is functional. It is more under-specified than verbose, which is appropriate to reward under this dimension.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, yet the schema unexpectedly includes nine unrelated parameters such as city, feed, host, json, zone, and query. The description does not explain how these relate to a Figma URL shape check, what the parsed result looks like, or how an agent should handle invalid input. This leaves too much to inference for confident invocation.

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 input schema covers all nine parameters with individual descriptions, so the baseline is 3 even though the description itself adds no parameter-level detail. The phrase 'Path discarded' is ambiguous because the schema contains a 'path' parameter described as 'File path to check,' not necessarily the URL path.

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, 'Parse,' and a clear resource, 'a Figma file URL,' which establishes the tool's core domain. It also adds a behavioral detail, 'Path discarded,' that clarifies one aspect of the result. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling URL/shape tools, but the 'Figma' specificity makes the purpose reasonably clear.

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 phrase 'Parse a Figma file URL' implies when the tool should be used: when the agent has a Figma file URL to inspect or normalize, rather than a GitHub repo, Jira key, or general domain. However, it gives no explicit when-not-to-use instructions, prerequisites, or routing to alternatives, so the usage guidance is only implied.

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