Affilio Link Tools

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

With no annotations, description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions return format (dict with base64 PNG) but omits potential side effects, rate limits, size constraints, or required permissions, which are important for a generative 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?

Two sentences: first sentence states core purpose, second adds customization and return type. Front-loaded and no unnecessary 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?

Despite having output schema and 5 parameters, description lacks parameter details and behavioral transparency. The return type is mentioned cursorily, but overall completeness is low given the tool's complexity.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It adds context for parameters like color, transparency, and rounded style but does not fully specify each parameter's meaning (e.g., color is foreground, background_color distinct). Partial but insufficient for complete understanding.

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 it generates a QR code PNG image for any URL, which is a specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from sibling tool shorten_url by describing a different function.

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 like shorten_url. Missing context on prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the AI agent with no decision support.

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?

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it mentions the safety check, storage in MongoDB, and the return value structure. It does not disclose potential issues like rate limits or authentication requirements, but for a simple creation tool it is fairly 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?

The description is a single paragraph that front-loads the purpose, then briefly explains the process and lists the return fields. Every sentence adds necessary 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?

Given the tool has only one parameter and no annotations, the description fully covers what the tool does, the process, and the output format. It mentions the output schema fields (short_url, qr_url, classification, base64 QR image) which is sufficient for an agent to understand the result.

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 1 parameter 'url' with no description (0% coverage). The description adds context that the URL undergoes a safety check, but does not explicitly state format requirements (e.g., requiring http://) or constraints beyond being a valid URL. It adds some value but could be more explicit.

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 explicitly states 'Create a short link for the given URL', clearly specifying the verb (create) and resource (short link). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'generate_qr' which likely generates QR codes for existing short links, so no confusion.

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 URL is checked for malicious domains and only safe URLs are shortened, providing some context. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or when to use the sibling tool 'generate_qr' instead.

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