Share link to the rendered plan

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

Beyond the read-only, idempotent annotations, it discloses key behavior: the plan is carried after the `#` and never sent to a server, the URL carries nothing else, non-compiling plans still get links, and the page shows diagnostics. It also explains the `ok`, `errors`, and `bytes` return values even though no output schema exists.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then adds only high-value details about URL fragment behavior and return fields. Every sentence 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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately explains the returned `ok`, `errors`, and `bytes` fields. It also covers the privacy and fallback behavior needed to call and interpret 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?

The single `source` parameter is fully documented in the schema as ArchLang source, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description does not add syntax or format guidance for `source`, which is acceptable at 100% coverage but limits credit here.

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?

It states a specific action (make two URLs) and resource (a plan shown in the browser), and explains the two link variants. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as describe or compile, so it falls short of 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?

It clearly says the links are for handing to a person, and explains when to use `playground` versus `embed` for an iframe. It does not state when not to use the tool or name alternative sibling tools.

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