shorttext

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the required authorization header, rejection without it, and that reading is open to everyone. This adds important context beyond the schema, though it doesn't cover potential rate limits or side effects like burnAfterRead.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and includes essential auth context in just two sentences. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without redundancy.

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?

The description adequately covers the tool's purpose, auth requirement, and return value (a URL) despite the absence of an output schema. It gives enough context for a simple creation tool, though it could be more explicit about the read_shorttext counterpart.

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 provides 100% description coverage for all five parameters, including enums and defaults. The description adds no new parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema; it only mentions Markdown support, which is already in the body parameter description, and the auth header, which is not a tool parameter.

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 action ('Create a new shortText') and the resource, and specifies the output ('shareable shorttext.com URL'). This distinguishes it from the sibling tool read_shorttext, which focuses on reading.

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 that creation requires an API key and is rejected without it, while reading remains open. This implies when to use this tool vs. reading, but it does not explicitly name an alternative tool or provide an explicit 'when-not' beyond the auth requirement.

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 burden of disclosing side effects. It transparently states that burn-after-read shortTexts are consumed upon reading, which is critical behavioral information. It also clarifies input requirements (password for private).

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, followed by return value and access behavior. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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 there is no output schema, the description mentions 'Returns the text body and metadata', which is a start but lacks specifics about the response structure or error cases. However, for a simple read operation with two parameters, it covers the essential contexts (access levels, side effects) sufficiently.

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%, so the description doesn't need to add much for parameters. It adds context by linking the slug to the URL format and reiterates the password requirement, but doesn't provide additional constraints or deeper semantics 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 the action: 'Fetch a shortText by its slug', specifying the resource and identifier. It distinguishes from the sibling create_shorttext by focusing on reading rather than creation.

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?

Provides clear context on when access is allowed ('Public and unlisted shortTexts are open; private ones need a password') and notes the burn-after-read consumption. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but the sibling tool name makes the distinction obvious.

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