get_shortlink

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

The annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds valuable context that retrieved source is untrusted external content, which is a security-relevant behavioral trait not captured by the annotations. It does not detail failure modes, but the output schema likely covers return 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 only two sentences and every word earns its place. The first sentence states the primary action and target, and the second adds an essential security warning. 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 single-parameter tool with output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description covers the core purpose and a key risk factor. It lacks explicit guidance on how to interpret the retrieved content or what happens for invalid IDs, but the presence of an output schema mitigates the need to describe return values. Overall, it's adequate for this 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?

The only parameter, shortlink_id, is described indirectly as 'a built-in Compiler Explorer shortlink ID,' giving it meaning beyond the bare schema. However, the description does not explain the format, origin, or any constraints of the ID, leaving some ambiguity. Given the 0% schema coverage, the description partially compensates but could be richer.

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's function: inspect C++ source and compiler settings from a shortlink ID. The verb 'inspect' is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_shortlink or compile_cpp. It also adds important context that the source is untrusted.

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 you should use this tool when you have a Compiler Explorer shortlink ID and want to see its source/settings, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention that it pairs with create_shortlink. No exclusions or alternative references are provided.

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