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

There are no annotations, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses one behavior ('Path discarded') but omits critical details: whether the operation is read-only, what the output format is, how other parameters are handled, and any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with such a sparse description.

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?

While the description is short, it is under-specified rather than concise. For a tool with 9 parameters and no annotations, a single sentence is inadequate. The structure fails to convey essential information that an agent needs to call the tool correctly.

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 the complexity (9 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how to interpret results, or how the various parameters relate to the 'shape check'. An agent cannot reliably determine correct usage from this description alone.

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 9 parameters. The description adds no extra meaning about them—it only mentions the URL implicitly via 'Figma file URL'. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description provides no additional value.

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 resource ('Figma file URL'), and the mention of 'Path discarded' hints at validation behavior. However, it does not clarify what 'parse' means (e.g., validate, extract, normalize) or differentiate from sibling tools like normalize-url or browser-url-ok. It is clear enough to guess the purpose but lacks precision.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools like github-repo-shape or jira-key-shape. The agent is left to infer its use case from the name alone.

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