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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses one behavior—'Path discarded'—but does not explain what parsing does, whether it validates or normalizes, what is returned, or whether any side effects occur. The behavioral transparency is therefore minimal.

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 highly concise and front-loaded, with every word contributing. The second fragment 'Path discarded' is compact and informative, though the brevity leaves key behavioral and structural details out, so it does not reach 5.

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, an agent cannot tell what the tool returns or what a valid Figma URL shape is; 'parse' is underspecified. The description is adequate only to guess the tool's rough purpose, not to confidently invoke and use the result correctly.

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?

All input schema properties have descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying that 'url' should be a Figma file URL and that the path is discarded, but it leaves the many unrelated properties (ref, city, feed, json, host) unexplained in the context of this tool, and the 'path' statement is ambiguous against the schema's 'File path to check'.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Parse a Figma file URL.' This makes the tool's target clear and distinguishes it from other shape-related tools by URL kind. The phrase 'Path discarded' adds a notable scope detail, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools or state what the shape check produces.

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 tells the agent that this tool applies to Figma file URLs, so the usage context is implied. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over sibling shape tools such as github-repo-shape or jira-key-shape, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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