bundler

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It successfully discloses return values ('short URL and QR code URLs') since no output schema exists, but omits auth requirements, rate limits, or error handling behavior.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste: first defines the action and returns, second gives usage context. Information is front-loaded and appropriately sized for tool complexity.

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 single-parameter tool without output schema, the description adequately compensates by explaining return format (short URL + QR codes). No critical gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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 is 100% with detailed constraints (1-12 URLs, https/http requirement). The description implies the 'urls' parameter but doesn't add syntax or format details beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Bundle') with clear resource ('multiple URLs') and platform ('UURL.at'). It distinguishes from sibling 'get_bundle' by implying creation vs. retrieval.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('when you want to share multiple reference links as one URL'). Lacks explicit 'when not to use' or mention of sibling 'get_bundle' for retrieval scenarios.

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

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 valuable behavioral detail by mentioning QR code URLs are included in the response, but fails to disclose other behavioral traits like error handling (what happens if the rid doesn't exist), rate limits, or authentication requirements.

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 consists of exactly two sentences with zero waste. The first defines the action and return data, while the second provides usage context. Every word earns its place and critical information is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter lookup tool, the description is reasonably complete. It compensates for the missing output schema by specifying what content is returned (URLs, metadata, QR codes). It could be improved by mentioning error cases or authentication needs.

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%, providing a detailed example of the rid format ('Ab3cDe'). The description mentions 'UURL.at short link' which contextually maps to the parameter, but does not add semantic meaning beyond what the schema already clearly defines. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves URLs, metadata, and QR codes from a UURL.at short link using specific verbs ('Retrieve', 'inspect'). While it implicitly distinguishes from the sibling 'bundle_urls' (likely a creation tool) by emphasizing inspection/lookup, it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling tool.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool ('Use this to inspect what URLs are behind a uurl.at link'). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention of 'bundle_urls' as an alternative for creating bundles rather than retrieving them.

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