cy_images_character_url

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 states the tool generates a URL, implying a read-only operation that returns a resource, but does not disclose details like authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what the generated URL represents (e.g., a direct image link, API endpoint). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be more informative. There is no structural issue, but it lacks depth that might warrant additional sentences for clarity.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the generated URL is used for, any dependencies, or output details (e.g., URL format, image type). For a tool that generates resources, more context is needed to ensure proper use without structured data to fill gaps.

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 parameter semantics beyond what the input schema provides. Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear documentation for 'characterId' and 'zoom' (including range for zoom). Since the schema fully describes parameters, the baseline score is 3, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract from the schema's completeness.

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 tool's purpose ('캐릭터 이미지 URL을 생성합니다' translates to 'Generates character image URL'), which is clear but basic. It specifies the verb ('생성합니다' - generates) and resource ('캐릭터 이미지 URL' - character image URL), but does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'cy_images_item_url' (which likely generates item image URLs) or explain scope beyond the literal translation. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about what makes this tool unique.

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 does not mention sibling tools (e.g., 'cy_images_item_url' for items vs. characters, or 'cy_characters_list' for listing characters), prerequisites, or exclusions. Usage is implied only by the tool name and description, with no explicit context for selection among related tools.

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