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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only discloses that the path is discarded, but omits any other side effects, return values, or checks performed. For a tool that likely validates or normalizes, this is a significant gap.

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 concise—one sentence with two clauses. It front-loads the purpose but lacks structure such as usage context or output format. It is efficient but under-specified, so it earns a middle score.

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 9 parameters, all optional, and no output schema, the description is woefully incomplete. It gives no indication of how the parameters relate to the Figma parsing, what a successful call returns, or any example usage. An agent cannot reliably call this tool based solely on the description.

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. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it does not improve or degrade the semantic clarity.

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 resource (Figma file URL) and a verb (parse), but it does not clarify what parsing entails or what the output is. It distinguishes from generic URL tools by naming Figma, but not from sibling shape-check tools like domain-shape or normalize-url.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description neither mentions other tools nor provides any condition for selection, leaving the agent to infer that it applies to Figma URLs without explicit direction.

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