parse_figma_url

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

With no annotations, the description partially carries the behavioral burden. It communicates that the tool is non-destructive and doesn't make external calls, but it does not disclose error handling for malformed URLs or outline any constraints on URL format.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently states the action, input, output, and key differentiator (no Figma call).

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context: it specifies the input type, the extracted fields, and that it operates offline. No additional explanatory text is needed.

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 0%, but the description specifies the accepted URL types (Figma design/file/proto URL), adding some semantics. However, it does not provide full format details or examples, leaving room for ambiguity.

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?

Description clearly states that it extracts fileKey, normalized nodeId, and urlType from a Figma URL, and notes that it does not call Figma, differentiating it from sibling tools that likely require API calls.

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 local usage (no API call) but does not specify when to use this tool over alternatives or exclude cases where URL is invalid. No sibling tool is named as an alternative for URL parsing.

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