Parse Moonvy URL

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds a useful behavioral fact: 'Does not require authentication.' However, it doesn't disclose behavior on invalid URLs, error handling, or whether any I/O occurs (though parsing is likely local). The description is thin on meaningful behavioral detail beyond the auth note.

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?

One concise sentence that front-loads the action ('Validate a Moonvy URL') and states the return value. No wasted words, efficient and to the point.

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-parameter tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what is returned (the three ID types) and notes that no authentication is needed. It could benefit from a hint that these IDs are used by other tools (e.g., as prerequisites), but the core information an agent needs to call it correctly is present.

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% – the 'url' parameter is fully described with its format ('Moonvy URL, normally /project/:projectId/:dirId/:fileId'). The tool description adds no further parameter detail, so the baseline of 3 applies. The schema already provides the necessary semantics.

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 action ('validate') and resource ('Moonvy URL'), and clearly specifies the output: project, directory, and file IDs. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like moonvy_list_pages or moonvy_get_design, which operate on different resources.

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 purpose implies when to use it (when you need IDs from a URL), but there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention of alternatives. It doesn't say, for example, 'use this instead of manually parsing the URL' or reference related tools. Guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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