inbio

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It mentions the auth scope but does not disclose failure modes, side effects, or that it modifies account state. Could be more 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?

Two concise sentences. First sentence states the action and options, second adds auth requirement. No superfluous content.

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 12 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, error handling, or how to structure complex options like UTM parameters.

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 42% (low). The description lists available options generically but does not add details for individual parameters (e.g., slug uniqueness, password requirements). Provides baseline value but not enough compensation.

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 specifies the action 'Create a short link' with 'full options', distinguishing it from simpler alternatives like shorten_link. It clearly identifies the resource (INBIO account) and the verb.

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 states the required 'links:write token scope', but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., shorten_link for simpler cases) or exclusions.

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 full burden. It discloses that deletion stops redirecting and requires a specific scope. However, it does not clarify whether deletion is irreversible, what happens to associated analytics, or any side effects. More detail would improve transparency.

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 two sentences long, each contributing essential information: the action and the required scope. It is front-loaded and efficient with no wasted words.

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 tool with one parameter, the description is acceptable but could be more complete. It does not mention return behavior (e.g., success/failure) or provide context relative to the many sibling tools. It leaves the user to infer the effect.

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 has one parameter 'id' with no description (0% coverage). The description does not explain what 'id' represents (e.g., the link's unique identifier). It adds no meaning beyond the schema structure.

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 'Delete a short link (it stops redirecting).' It specifies the verb 'Delete' and the resource 'short link', and the parenthetical clarifies the effect. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_link or update_link.

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 mentions the required scope 'links:write' but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_link_enabled or update_link. No exclusions or context for selection are given.

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 provided, so description bears full burden. Discloses that tool is free, requires no authentication, and returns a stable image URL. Does not mention rate limits or side effects, but for a read-like tool this is acceptable.

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, front-loaded with main purpose and key benefits (free, no token). Efficiently conveys supported types and return value. Could be slightly more structured, but no waste.

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, but description specifies return type (image URL). With 10 parameters including a nested object, the description adequately covers the tool's capability. Lacks detail on response format beyond URL, but sufficient for a generation 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% with descriptions for each parameter. The description adds value by summarizing supported payload types in a readable way (e.g., 'url→{url}'), which complements the schema detail. Provides high-level guidance beyond 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?

Description uses specific verb 'Generate' and resource 'styled QR code image URL'. Lists supported payload types (URL, text, Wi-Fi, etc.), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools which focus on link management/analytics.

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?

States 'Free, no token needed', implying ease of use. Lists supported payload types so user knows what data can be encoded. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but siblings are unrelated, so context is clear.

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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only lists what is returned, lacking details on side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether it is read-only. Given zero annotations, this is insufficient.

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 that efficiently lists the key output categories. No wasted words, front-loaded with key information.

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 0-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimal. It does not mention authentication or response format explicitly, though the tool name implies 'authenticated'. It is adequate but could add behavioral context to be fully 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?

There are no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter info beyond what the schema provides, which is expected. Baseline for 0 params is 4.

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 returns current plan, period usage (links created, clicks, API requests), and plan limits for the authenticated account. It is a specific verb+resource combo, and distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on link management.

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 implies when to use (check plan and usage) but does not provide explicit when-not or alternatives. However, sibling tools are all link-centric, reducing confusion. No prerequisites mentioned, but the tool name implies authentication.

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 full burden for behavioral traits. It states the tool fetches a link and requires a scope, but does not disclose what happens on missing id, rate limits, or response format. Minimal disclosure beyond the scope.

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 extremely concise at two sentences. Each sentence has clear value: the first states the core function, the second specifies an important requirement. No redundant information.

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 fetch tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description lacks critical context about return values, error handling, and invalid input behavior. It is incomplete for reliable usage, especially given the complexity of sibling tools.

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 0%, and the description adds no meaning beyond 'by id'. It does not explain what the 'id' parameter represents (e.g., the short link ID) or provide constraints. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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') and the resource ('one short link by id'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_links (multiple), create_link, and delete_link by specifying 'one' and using 'by id'.

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 includes a scope requirement ('Requires links:read scope'), providing context for authorization. However, it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_links for multiple links) or mention conditions like link existence.

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?

The description discloses that bot traffic is excluded and the required auth scope. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden. It could mention rate limits or data freshness, but the current disclosure is adequate.

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 concise sentences: the first states the purpose and data returned, the second clarifies exclusions and requirements. No wasted words; front-loaded with key information.

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 covers the main outputs, auth scope, and bot exclusion. With no output schema, it does a good job setting expectations. Minor gaps include not specifying how many top items are returned or whether results are paginated, but overall sufficient for an analytics 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?

The description adds no meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema provides. Schema description coverage is 67%, with 'to' and 'from' described as date strings; the description does not elaborate on 'id' or date defaults. The description compensates slightly by describing the output context, but for parameters specifically, it adds no value.

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 returns 'click analytics for a link' and enumerates specific components: totals, daily series, top countries, devices, browsers, referrers. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_link (which likely returns link metadata) and list_links.

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 states the required scope ('analytics:read'), providing a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool over alternatives like get_link or list_links; the context is implied by the tool name and sibling list.

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 full burden. It states the action and scope but does not disclose behavioral traits like pagination, limits, or read-only nature (though listing is inherently read-only).

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences with no wasted words. Every piece of information serves a purpose.

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 tool with no output schema, the description is adequate: it specifies the action and a key requirement (scope). However, it lacks details on the return format or expected behavior, which could be useful.

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 input schema has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter details, and the baseline of 4 applies.

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 identifies the tool's action ('list'), the resource ('account's link folders'), and the required scope. It is distinct from sibling tools like list_links.

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 mentions the required scope but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_links). Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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 provided; description only mentions scope requirement. Missing behavioral traits such as pagination, ordering, rate limits, or filter interactions.

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?

Single sentence is concise and front-loaded. Could be more structured but minimal waste.

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?

Lacks output schema and annotations. Missing details on pagination defaults, result format, and error conditions for a listing tool with 6 parameters.

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 low (17%, only search described). Description says 'optional filters' but provides no additional meaning for parameters beyond basic names.

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?

Description clearly states the tool lists an account's short links with optional filters, using specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_link (single link) and create_link.

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 explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives like list_folders or list_tags. The scope requirement is noted but no comparative usage advice.

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 provided; description only states listing behavior. Lacks details on pagination, sorting, or side effects. For a read-only tool, it could be more explicit.

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?

Single sentence with no unnecessary words. Front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 zero parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is simple but adequately covers the tool's basic function. Lacks any mention of output format or additional behaviors.

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?

No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no extra parameter meaning, but none is needed.

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?

Clearly states the action (list) and resource (link tags) with scope (account's). However, does not differentiate from sibling tools like list_links or list_folders.

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?

Specifies a prerequisite (links:read scope) but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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 full burden. It states the basic mutation (enable/disable) but does not disclose behavioral traits such as idempotency, error handling, rate limits, or whether changes are immediate. The description is minimal.

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, concise and to the point. It avoids unnecessary detail, but could benefit from a slight restructuring to include parameter hints.

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 absence of output schema, annotations, and parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete. It lacks information about return values, side effects, or validation constraints, which are important for a mutation 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should clarify the parameters. It does not explain that 'id' refers to the link's unique identifier or that 'enabled' sets the new state. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory but lack explicit documentation.

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 (enable/disable) and the resource (short link). It is specific enough to differentiate from siblings like delete_link or generate_qr_code, though not explicitly mentioning alternatives.

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 only mentions the required scope ('links:write') but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus update_link (which might also modify link properties) or other alternatives. No exclusions or context for appropriate use.

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 provided, the description fully discloses key behaviors: free usage, no authentication needed, 30-day expiration for anonymous links, and the ability to claim links for analytics via the returned claim_url.

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?

Three sentences that are concise, front-loaded with purpose, and each sentence adds value without redundancy. No wasted words.

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 tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what it does, free usage, expiration, and claim mechanism. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke 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 coverage is 100% (one parameter 'url' described in schema as 'The long URL to shorten'). The description adds no additional meaning for the parameter itself, only contextual information about the tool's behavior. 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 'Shorten a URL into an in.bio short link' with specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'create_link' (which likely requires an account) by emphasizing 'Free, no account or token needed.'

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 explains the context of use: free, anonymous, with expiration after 30 days unless claimed. It implies when to use this tool over account-based tools, but does not explicitly list when not to use or name alternatives.

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 full behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the auth scope and a feature constraint for one field, but does not mention side effects, idempotency, error conditions, or whether the update is atomic. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 concise sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose and scope, the second adds a key constraint. Efficient and well-structured.

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 presence of a nested object parameter (fields) and no output schema, the description could be more complete. It does not specify the response format, whether the update returns the updated link, or how errors are handled. The main constraints are covered, but gaps remain.

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 has 50% coverage; the description adds meaning by clarifying the 'fields' object content: 'any subset of create_link fields, plus slug'. It also specifies that destination_url requires Pro+, which is beyond the schema. This compensates for the schema's lack of detail.

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 verb 'update' and the resource 'short link'. It specifies the updateable fields as 'any subset of create_link fields, plus slug', distinguishing it from create_link. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other update-like tools like set_link_enabled.

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 a usage condition for editing destination_url (requires Pro+ feature) and mentions required scope (links:write). It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_link or set_link_enabled, nor does it provide exclusions.

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