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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the return shape, the key behavior that the editor loads exactly the given project from the URL, and the expected user-facing follow-through. It does not cover failure cases or side effects, but for a link-generation tool this is reasonably transparent.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose before the usage guidance. Every sentence adds useful information: what the tool returns, when to invoke it, and how to present the result. There is no wasted or redundant content.

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?

This is a low-complexity tool with one fully documented parameter and no output schema, so the description must explain the return value itself — which it does. It also provides clear invocation context and user-handling instructions. Nothing needed for correct selection and invocation is missing.

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 coverage for the single parameter projectId is 100%, so the schema already documents what the parameter means. The description does not add extra parameter-level detail beyond the schema, which matches the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Get a tappable link that opens a project directly in the editor." It also states the exact return value, { name, editorUrl }, and explains the distinguishing behavior that the editor loads exactly this project from the URL. This clearly separates it from sibling project tools like list_projects or rename_project.

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 gives explicit triggers: use it when the user wants to view their work, after making a change, or when they say "show me" / "open it." It also instructs the agent to pass the editorUrl to the user and refer to the project by name. However, it does not mention when not to use it or name any alternative tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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