Parse a DESIGN.md file to return its frontmatter, Markdown body, and flattened token index, giving direct access to design specs and tokens.
Parse a DESIGN.md file and return its frontmatter, Markdown body, and flattened token index.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Path to DESIGN.md |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.2.9Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value beyond these by disclosing exactly what is produced: frontmatter, Markdown body, and a flattened token index. This is useful and consistent with the annotations.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and then lists precisely what the caller receives. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary abstraction.
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, read-only, single-parameter tool, the description is complete: it identifies the target file, the operation, and the output shape. Annotations cover safety and idempotency, and no output schema is present to require extra return-value documentation.
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 schema fully documents the only parameter, path, as 'Path to DESIGN.md', so the description does not need to add parameter details. The baseline of 3 applies because schema coverage is 100% and the description does not contradict or add meaningful parameter-level 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 names a specific verb (Parse), a specific resource (DESIGN.md), and explicitly enumerates the returned payload (frontmatter, Markdown body, flattened token index). It clearly distinguishes this read operation from sibling creation/modification tools like init_design_md and update_design_md.
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 a clear use context: when you need the parsed contents of a DESIGN.md file. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but no competing sibling does exactly the same read-and-parse job, so the context is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.