org_generate_promo_kit_url
Returns a URL to the org's downloadable promo kit (QR poster + share card) for a given program.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| program_id | Yes |
Returns a URL to the org's downloadable promo kit (QR poster + share card) for a given program.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| program_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the output is a URL, without mentioning authentication requirements, error handling, rate limits, or side effects. This is insufficient for safe invocation.
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 concise sentence that front-loads the purpose. However, it omits important details such as parameter clarification and behavioral notes, making it only minimally adequate.
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 (1 parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally complete. It conveys the core functionality but lacks error handling notes, usage precautions, and alternative tool references.
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 has one parameter (program_id) with 0% description coverage. The description merely says 'for a given program' without explaining the format, source, or constraints of program_id. It adds minimal value beyond the schema.
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 'Returns a URL to the org's downloadable promo kit (QR poster + share card) for a given program,' specifying the verb, resource, and scope. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools, which lack similar functionality.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No prerequisites, exclusions, or context for invocation are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Tools are clearly grouped by prefix (admin_, daycare_, org_, parent_) and within each group have distinct, non-overlapping purposes. For example, parent_add_kid vs parent_remove_kid are unambiguous.
All tools follow a consistent snake_case pattern with role prefix and action_noun structure. Minor exceptions like 'nearby_programs' are standalone and do not disrupt the overall consistency.
With 72 tools, this is far beyond the typical well-scoped range of 3-15. While the tools cover multiple user roles, the count is excessive and likely overwhelming for an agent, falling into the 'too many' category.
The tool set covers most core workflows for parents, orgs, and admins, but notable gaps exist: there is no tool to create a program or daycare, and admin tools for approving pending claims or discoveries are missing, leaving dead ends.