uri_shorthand_expand

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses a key trait: 'local only,' indicating no network/API call. It also documents the shorthand code mappings. It does not detail error handling for invalid refs or the exact return shape, but the core behavior is 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 dense sentence with no filler. Every element earns its place: the action, examples, code mapping, and the local-only note. Information is front-loaded with the purpose before the code list.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it explains the input format, the output, and the local behavior. Remaining gaps are minor — exact return type and invalid-input handling — and do not prevent 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 coverage is 100% for the single refs parameter, but the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema by explaining all accepted codes (t/tr, al, ar, pl/p, sh, ep, ab, u) and giving multiple format examples. This goes beyond the schema's minimal example.

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 a specific verb ('Expand') and resource ('shorthand Spotify refs'), and specifies the output ('canonical spotify: URIs'). It provides examples and a full code mapping, making it distinct from sibling URI tools like normalize_spotify_uri or parse_spotify_uri.

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 when to use the tool — whenever you have shorthand refs like 't:<id>' or 'pl/<id>' — and notes it is 'local only.' However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as canonicalize_spotify_uri or make_spotify_uri, nor state when not to use it.

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