NudgeHost

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the activation semantics (nothing is served until this succeeds), the ZIP/index-file transformation into a hosted site, and that the returned URL may differ from the one create_upload_url predicted. It omits permission/auth requirements and failure/error behavior, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 action and its trigger are front-loaded in the first two sentences, and every subsequent sentence carries distinct information (activation delay, ZIP behavior, URL discrepancy, which id to pass). It runs a bit long for a one-parameter tool, but there is no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description compensates by explaining that the returned URL is final and may differ from the predicted address, and by telling the agent to report it. For a single-parameter finalization step, nothing needed to call it correctly 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 is 100% for the single parameter, so the baseline is 3; the description adds real meaning by specifying the id's provenance ("the id create_upload_url gave you") and that no other input is accepted ("and nothing else"), which clarifies call shape 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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ("Finish an upload that create_upload_url started") and situates itself in a two-step flow, making it immediately distinguishable from create_upload_url, list_links and share_text.

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 the precondition for calling it ("once the bytes have been PUT to the upload URL") and the consequence of not calling it ("The link does not serve anything until this succeeds"). The sequencing with the named sibling leaves nothing to inference.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so richly: a two-step contract, a five-minute expiry, the re-call-on-lapse rule, and that size_bytes is signed into the URL so storage refuses any other length. This is exactly the lifecycle and failure-mode context an agent needs for a multi-step upload.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then sequences the contract, expiry rule, parameter constraint, and the sibling alternative. Every sentence carries distinct information with no filler, despite the length.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, yet the description covers the return shape ('a URL' and 'the id it returns'), the multi-step flow, the expiry window, and the fallback. Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke it correctly 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters thoroughly. The description only reinforces the size_bytes signing constraint (already in the schema) and does not add syntax or meaning for filename, content_type, or desired_slug beyond what the schema states, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Start an upload for a file this server does not hold') and the immediate payoff ('get back a URL to send the bytes to'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling share_text explicitly, so an agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use steps (PUT the bytes, then call complete_upload) and names the condition that selects the alternative: 'Use share_text instead when you already hold the text and want it published in a single call.' It also tells the agent what to do if the URL lapses (call again for a fresh one rather than reusing the id).

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does most of it: default 50 / max 100 page size, cursor-based pagination with a plain-language end-of-results signal, and the fact that deleted links are excluded. It stops short of stating auth/permission requirements or scope limits, which is the remaining gap for a zero-annotation tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then usage, then pagination contract, in that order. Every sentence delivers a distinct fact (ordering, use cases, page size, cursor handoff, deletion filter) with no filler or repetition.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing the return payload (URL plus details per link, cursor appended when more pages exist, explicit end-of-list signal). Combined with the pagination and limit details, an agent has everything needed to call and consume this correctly.

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%, so both parameters are already fully documented in the schema, including the 1-100 range, the default of 50, and the instruction to pass the cursor back verbatim. The description only restates the page-size numbers, adding no meaning beyond the structured field.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the links on this account') plus ordering semantics ('newest first') and the payload shape ('URL and details of each'). The sibling set (complete_upload, create_upload_url, share_text) is entirely write-oriented, so the read-only purpose is distinguishable without inspecting any schema.

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?

Gives three concrete when-to-use conditions: find a link shared earlier, check if something is still up, and inspect what an account holds before adding to it. The last one implicitly routes to the write siblings, but no alternative tool or exclusion is named explicitly, so it falls 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.

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the size cap, that the resulting link is public with no sign-in required, and rich rendering behavior keyed off the extension. It omits whether sharing is reversible/expirable and error behavior on oversized content.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, which is good. But the .md sentence enumerates an excess of UI affordances (headings, lists, tables, task lists, links, Source view, Copy source button, raw text address) that mostly repeats the schema's rendering description and inflates the definition.

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 two-param tool with no output schema, the description covers size limits, output format per extension, and the public/no-auth nature of the returned link. Only the absence of routing guidance relative to sibling tools and any note on failure modes keeps it short of complete.

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% and both parameters are documented, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema by explaining how filename extensions select rendering modes (.html live render, .csv/.json viewers, .md formatted view, otherwise plain text), giving the agent a clear mental model for choosing the filename.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Publish text at a public URL and get the link back'), so an agent knows exactly what happens. It does not name or differentiate itself from siblings like create_upload_url or complete_upload, leaving the choice to inference.

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 2MB UTF-8 byte limit implicitly signals when this tool is unsuitable and a larger-upload flow is needed, and the extension behavior conveys the intended use cases. However it never explicitly says when to prefer share_text over create_upload_url or the upload siblings, so usage is only implied.

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