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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal one trait—'Path discarded'—but does not explain whether the tool validates, normalizes, extracts, or returns a value, nor does it describe side effects or failure behavior. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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 short and front-loaded, with no filler. Every word earns some place. The second sentence, 'Path discarded,' is cryptic, which slightly reduces structural clarity, but the overall conciseness is strong.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify what the caller receives after parsing. It does not mention the return format, validation outcome, or whether 'path discarded' refers to the URL path or an input parameter. The tool may work, but an agent lacks enough context to confidently interpret its result.

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 schema already documents all parameters. The description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond clarifying that the target input is a Figma file URL. It does not specify which parameter carries the URL or how the 'path discarded' note relates to the schema's actual path parameter.

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 and resource: 'Parse a Figma file URL.' This clearly identifies what the tool operates on and distinguishes it from sibling shape-checkers like github-repo-shape or jira-key-shape. The phrase 'Path discarded' adds a behavioral detail but is ambiguous enough to prevent a 5.

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 implies when to use the tool: when a Figma file URL needs parsing. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for other URL or shape checks. Usage is conveyed but not fully developed.

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