Get Moonvy design metadata

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. It only states what is returned and gives no indication of side effects, prerequisites, error conditions, or whether it is a read-only operation. As a getter, read-only behavior is implied but never stated; this is a gap given zero 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 a single, dense sentence that enumerates the output fields without any fluff. Every word contributes value and the structure is front-loaded with the resource and verb. No unnecessary repetition of the title or schema.

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?

For a simple one-param getter with no output schema, the description lists all the return fields, which gives an agent sufficient expectation of the result. However, it omits any caveats (e.g., URL validity, error behavior) and does not mention read-only nature. Given the simplicity, it is nearly complete but missing minor behavioral context.

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?

The input schema fully documents the single 'url' parameter (100% coverage) with a format and an example pattern. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since schema covers it.

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 clear verb ('Return') and a specific resource (design metadata for a Moonvy design URL), and enumerates the exact fields returned (title, genome version, frame IDs, dimensions, child counts). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_pages or get_node_style, which target different granularity.

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 it (when you need design-level metadata) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention any alternatives. It lacks exclusions or comparisons to siblings like moonvy_parse_url or moonvy_list_pages. The usage context is clear but not formally differentiated.

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