短.在线

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully reveals the exact return value, the precondition that the link must be existing and active, and the current limitation that the PNG image endpoint is unavailable. It does not explicitly state whether using this tool mutates or 'tags' the link, but the 'Returns' phrasing and the image_available=false flag cover the most operationally important behavior.

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 short sentences, front-loading the core purpose and then adding the key caveat about the unavailable PNG endpoint. Every clause earns its place and there is no wasted wording.

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 full parameter documentation and an output schema, the description covers the main use case, the precondition, and the current limitation. The main gap is that the schema marks zero parameters as required, and the description does not explicitly state that at least one of id or short_url must be provided, though 'for an existing active link' strongly implies it.

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 both id and short_url as existing identifiers. The description adds the 'existing active link' precondition, but it does not clarify whether either parameter is sufficient, which one should be preferred, or what happens if both are supplied. This is adequate but not a strong value-add over 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 states a specific action and resource: 'Returns qr_tracking_url (?s=qr) for an existing active link.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like shorten_url or get_link_analytics, since it is specifically about generating a QR tracking URL from an already-existing 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 makes clear that this tool operates on an existing active link, so an agent can infer it is not for creating new short links. It also warns that the PNG image endpoint is not live, which prevents misuse. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is reasonably 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key behavior: the tool does not actually disable anything and returns a structured feature_not_available response. This is a significant, non-obvious behavioral trait that an agent must know before calling the 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded, with no filler; both clauses add information about intent and current behavior. It is slightly too terse to replace missing schema documentation, but as a standalone text it is efficient.

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 one-parameter stub with an output schema, the description covers the availability status and return shape. However, it omits all parameter semantics and usage conditions, leaving a caller without enough information to construct a 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description never mentions the required id parameter, its meaning, or how it relates to 'path'. The agent cannot determine whether id refers to a link ID, short code, or URL path from the description alone.

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 opens with a concrete action, 'Disable/block path', which aligns with the title and distinguishes it from read/create siblings like get_link and create_qr. The 'not live yet' qualifier and the stated feature_not_available return make the current intended behavior clear, though 'path' instead of 'link' is slightly ambiguous.

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 the tool should not be invoked yet ('not live yet') but never states when to use it or what to use instead. No alternative sibling is named, and there is no guidance about what an agent should do if a caller needs to disable a link.

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 must disclose behavior fully. It mentions a five-state status and the destination condition, but it doesn't clarify that this is a read-only operation, describe the states, or mention error/edge cases. The cryptic 'Soft C' phrase adds confusion rather than clarity. This is a significant gap for a tool that has no annotation support.

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—two short sentences—with the endpoint and a key condition front-loaded. No wasted words, but the cryptic 'Soft C five-state' could be clarified. It's appropriately sized for a simple GET 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?

While the tool has an output schema (so return values are covered elsewhere), the description leaves the meaning of 'Soft C five-state status' unexplained and doesn't clarify the full state model or whether this tool is the right choice for retrieving a link's destination. Given the low complexity, more clarity on the status semantics would make it 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?

The input schema fully describes the single 'id' parameter as a short code/link id, so the description doesn't need to add parameter details. The description doesn't contradict or add value beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 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 states it's a GET for a link's status via id, and the phrase 'Destination only when state=active' hints at a key behavior. However, 'Soft C five-state status' is jargon that may confuse an agent, and it doesn't explicitly differentiate from get_links (which could also return status for multiple links). Still, it's clear enough about the resource and 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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like get_links, resolve_short_url, or get_link_analytics. It only states a condition about the destination field, which is a behavioral detail rather than a selection criterion. An agent would have to infer when this is the right call.

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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that the API is not live and that the tool 'Returns structured feature_not_available', which is a clear behavioral trait beyond the schema. This is honest and useful, though it does not address permissions or other nuances—acceptable for a placeholder.

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 very concise and front-loaded with the core purpose ('Analytics read') followed by the key limitation. It is efficient with no filler, though it could optionally mention that the parameter is the link ID. Overall, the structure is effective for a tool that is not yet functional.

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 that an output schema exists (per context signals), the description does not need to explain return values beyond the explicit 'Returns structured feature_not_available'. This is sufficient for an agent to understand the current state and avoid misuse. The description is complete for the tool's current placeholder status.

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 does not add any meaning to the single 'id' parameter beyond what the schema provides (string, min/max length). The parameter's purpose is inferable from the tool name (link analytics), but the description itself offers no clarification. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate, but it does not.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Analytics read') and implies it is distinct from sibling tools like get_link and get_links. It clearly signals that this tool is for analytics rather than link retrieval, but it does not detail what analytics are returned (since it is not live), which keeps it from a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states 'API not live yet', which effectively tells the agent not to use it, but it does not suggest an alternative or explain the intended use case. This is minimal usage guidance at best.

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 behavioral disclosure. It openly states that the tool is not live and returns a structured 'feature_not_available' response, which is valuable behavioral context beyond the tool name.

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 and front-loads the essential 'not live yet' caveat. It wastes no words, though it could be slightly more helpful with a one-line alternative or usage note.

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 communicates the stub-like state and expected unavailable response, especially with an output schema present. It is incomplete, however, in guiding the agent toward an alternative or clarifying whether accepting limit/cursor has any 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain limit or cursor beyond the resource context of listing links. The parameter names and schema hints provide some meaning, but 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 states the resource and action ('List links') clearly, and the 'not live yet' caveat clarifies the current state. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_link, though plural 'links' implies a list operation.

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 the tool should not be used for actual listing because the REST list is not live yet. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance or point to an alternative sibling for list operations.

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 does reveal that the destination is returned only if the link is active ('iff active'), which is a useful conditional. However, it does not disclose that both url and code are optional per the schema (implying at least one must be provided), nor does it mention error cases or explicitly confirm the operation is read-only. The description is thin on behavioral details beyond the conditional.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action ('Resolve an apex short URL or code') and the result ('to link status'). Every word earns its place, and it avoids redundant phrasing. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 tool has an output schema, so the return structure is covered. The description captures the core behavior (resolving to status and conditional destination) and is adequate for a simple lookup. The only notable gap is the schema's 0 required parameters conflicting with the implied need to supply at least one of url/code; the description does not explicitly enforce or clarify this, but it does say 'or', which hints at a choice. Overall, it is sufficiently complete given the output schema.

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% – both url and code have descriptive text, with the schema noting 'Short code if URL not provided'. The description adds the word 'apex' but does not define it or add meaning beyond the schema. It clarifies the two inputs are alternatives, but this is already implied by the schema's phrasing. The description adds marginal value, so baseline 3 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 states the tool resolves a short URL or code to link status, with a conditional destination. The verb 'resolve' and resource are specific, and the purpose is distinct from siblings like shorten_url, get_link, or disable_link, which manage or create links. It is unambiguous about what the tool does.

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 the use case: when you have a short URL or code and want to check its status. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the sibling set (shorten, update, disable, analytics) makes it clear this is for resolution only. The guidance is implicit but adequate, lacking explicit exclusionary notes.

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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add value by stating the idempotency_key requirement (including the header alternative) and the two possible return types. However, it does not explain what conditions lead to ActiveLinkCreated versus NonActiveLinkCreated, nor does it disclose side effects, rate limits, or permission needs. It is more informative than a tautology but lacks depth for a mutation 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?

The description is only two sentences and front-loads the core purpose. There is no fluff, and the idempotency requirement is mentioned right after the return types. It is slightly lacking in structure—no use of bullets or clear separation of concerns—but it is appropriately sized for the 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 tool with 7 parameters and no annotations, the description is under-specified. It does not clarify the distinction between url and longUrl, nor alias and customSlug, which could lead an agent to misuse them. It also does not explain the business meaning of the two return types or any error handling. The output schema exists, but the description's mention of it is not enough to cover the full context an agent needs to call this 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 coverage is 71%, so the description does not need to repeat parameter details. It does add one semantic nuance: idempotency_key can be passed as an argument or via the Idempotency-Key header, which is not fully captured in the schema description. However, it adds nothing about url vs longUrl or alias vs customSlug, which are potentially confusing duplicates. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate, with the idempotency clarification being a minor bonus.

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 single short link'), names the HTTP endpoint, and the word 'single' distinguishes it from the sibling shorten_urls (plural). It also mentions the return types, which further clarifies its scope. This is a specific verb+resource statement that an agent can easily act on.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only says 'single', which implicitly contrasts with the plural shorten_urls, but it does not name the sibling or state conditions for choosing one over the other. It also does not mention any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the idempotency_key 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it's a synchronous batch create, requires an idempotency key, and correlates by client_ref, which is useful. However, it doesn't mention potential failure modes (e.g., partial success, error handling) or the output format, which for a batch operation with an output schema might be important.

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, information-dense sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the core action and limit, then covers correlation and idempotency. Every word earns its place.

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 complexity of a batch operation, the description covers the main usage (batch, limit, correlation, idempotency). The output schema exists, so return values are covered by that. However, it lacks explicit error handling and partial-failure semantics, which would be valuable for batch calls. It's almost complete but has a minor gap in failure transparency.

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 50%, with the 'items' and 'idempotency_key' fields having descriptions, but the nested item properties like 'title' and 'locale' lack descriptions. The description adds context about 'client_ref' correlation and the idempotency requirement, which aids understanding. However, it doesn't compensate for the undefined 'locale' field and other nested parameters, so it's adequate but not complete.

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 states a clear action ('Sync batch create ≤100 links') and references the HTTP endpoint, distinguishing it from the singular 'shorten_url' sibling. However, it does not explicitly name the sibling or contrast the batch vs single behavior, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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 explicitly mentions 'batch' and the ≤100 limit, implying when to prefer this over the singular 'shorten_url' sibling, and mentions the correlation by 'client_ref', which is key for batch handling. However, it does not explicitly state 'use this instead of shorten_url for multiple links', leaving some 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 burden of disclosing runtime behavior. It transparently states that the tool is not live and that it returns a structured feature_not_available response, which is the critical behavioral fact for an agent. It does not speculate about post-launch behavior, which is appropriate given the current stub state.

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 short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the key fact ('PATCH link') and immediately follows with the availability status and the expected return. Every word contributes useful 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 tool that is not yet live, the most important context is that it returns feature_not_available, and that is clearly stated. The schema documents parameters, and an output schema exists, reducing the need for the description to explain return values. The main gap is the lack of any pointer to an alternative tool, but that is a usage-guideline issue rather than a completeness issue for this stub.

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 only 33%, so the description should compensate by explaining the parameters. It does not explain id, title, or destination beyond what the schema already provides; the destination field already has a description in the schema. The 'PATCH' verb implies partial-update semantics, which adds some meaning, but important parameter meanings and required-id semantics are left undocumented in the description.

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 states 'PATCH link', which conveys an update operation on a link resource and distinguishes it from siblings like create_qr, disable_link, and get_link. It also immediately flags that the tool is 'not live yet', which is essential for an agent deciding whether to call it. However, it does not explicitly say what aspects of a link are updateable (e.g., title, destination) beyond what the schema already implies.

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 no when-to-use guidance and names no alternatives. The 'not live yet' note implicitly warns the agent not to use it, but it does not explicitly say to avoid it or suggest another tool. There is no explanation of when update_link should be preferred over any sibling tool, so usage context is essentially absent.

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