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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Path discarded' reveals one behavioral trait, but the description omits whether the tool performs network access, is read-only, what it returns, and what URL formats are accepted. For an unannotated tool, this is insufficient transparency.

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 very concise and front-loaded with the main verb and resource. Every word earns its place, and there is no filler. The terseness does create ambiguity, but structurally it is efficient.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and an input schema with nine mostly unrelated parameters, a seven-word description is not enough. The agent lacks guidance on which parameter to populate, what the tool returns, what URL shapes are valid, and whether any side effects occur. This is a significant completeness 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 even though the description adds little parameter-level meaning. 'Path discarded' merely restates what the path parameter's schema already says. The description also does not clarify which of the nine schema parameters is the intended Figma URL input or whether the others are ignored.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Parse a Figma file URL.' This clearly distinguishes the domain from sibling tools like github-repo-shape or domain-shape. However, it does not say what the parse result is or what 'shape' means, and 'Path discarded' is cryptic rather than explanatory.

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 usage context is implied by the Figma-specific subject: an agent would infer to use this tool when given a Figma file URL. There is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives such as normalize-url or browser-url-ok, but the domain is specific enough to provide some direction.

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