tollbooth-shortlinks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the key non-obvious trait: the URL is ephemeral and expires after 24 hours. It does not discuss slug conflicts or error handling, but the most important behavioral constraint is explicitly surfaced.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and immediately followed by the essential qualifier. Every word earns its place with no 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?

For a two-parameter create operation with an output schema present, the description covers the core purpose and the only notable behavioral constraint (expiration). Missing conflict-handling details are minor and not needed to select or invoke the tool 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%; both url and slug are already fully documented in the input schema. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail, so the schema carries the semantic weight, matching the high-coverage baseline.

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 ('Create') and resource ('short URL'), and adds the defining qualifier 'ephemeral ... expires after 24 hours'. This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools delete_shortlink, resolve_shortlink, and shortlink_status.

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 clearly establishes the context: use this when you need a temporary short URL that self-expires. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the create-vs-manage distinction among siblings is obvious enough that an agent can infer when to use it.

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 of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that deletion happens but does not mention irreversibility, effects on related data, or what happens if the slug is already expired or nonexistent. 'Before it expires' hints at a temporal constraint but does not explain it.

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 sentence with no filler; the verb and object are front-loaded, and the temporal qualifier is brief. It is minimal but readable and appropriately sized for a one-parameter deletion tool.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, this is minimally sufficient to invoke, but it lacks important context about destructive effects and expiration behavior. The description does not fully cover what an agent should expect when deleting or when deletion is no longer possible.

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%, and the single parameter 'slug' is documented in the schema as 'The shortlink slug to delete.' The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('a shortlink'), and is easily distinguished from the sibling tools create_shortlink, resolve_shortlink, and shortlink_status. The phrase 'before it expires' adds a scoping constraint without obscuring the core action.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and there are no exclusions or conditions provided. The intended use is only implied by the tool name and the word 'Delete', not stated.

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 does disclose one meaningful behavior, 'without redirecting', indicating a non-mutating lookup. However, it does not mention error behavior, auth requirements, or what happens for unknown slugs.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to purpose or behavior, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 one required parameter, no nested objects, and an output schema, the description covers the essential context an agent needs. It is slightly thin only in not explicitly distinguishing itself from shortlink_status, but it is otherwise complete for a simple lookup tool.

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 slug parameter is already fully documented. The description only restates that the slug is resolved and adds no format or syntax detail, matching the baseline for well-covered schema parameters.

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 ('Look up'), a clear resource ('where a slug points'), and a behavioral boundary ('without redirecting'). This cleanly differentiates it from create_shortlink, delete_shortlink, and shortlink_status.

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 context is clear: use this when you need to know where a slug points rather than creating, deleting, or checking the status of a shortlink. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the intended usage is evident.

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 behavioral burden. 'Health check' and 'shows' clearly convey a non-mutating, read-only operation and disclose what is returned. It does not address auth or freshness, but for a simple status tool the behavior is adequately 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase adds value: 'Health check' sets the intent, and 'number of active shortlinks and TTL' specifies the exact output.

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 parameterless health-check tool with an output schema present, the description is nearly complete. It explains what the tool reports; the only minor gap is not elaborating on what TTL represents or when to prefer this tool, but these are not blocking for correct invocation.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema confirms this with an empty properties object. Per the baseline for parameterless tools, no additional parameter explanation is required, and the description still clarifies the tool's output.

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 ('shows') and a clear resource ('shortlinks'), scoped to active shortlinks and TTL. The 'health check' framing makes it obviously distinct from the create/delete/resolve siblings without needing to name them.

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?

Usage context is only implied: an agent can infer this tool is for health/status monitoring rather than creating, deleting, or resolving shortlinks. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternatives are named.

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