Get shareable link

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the link opens in any normal browser with no install needed, uses the current circuit by default, and is intended for interactive viewing/editing. It doesn't mention potential sharing caveats or response shape, but for a simple read-only link generator it is reasonably 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 compact and front-loaded. Three sentences each contribute: what it returns, how the input affects behavior, and how to use the result. There is no filler or duplication of schema details.

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 low-complexity tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It identifies the output as a URL, explains the default behavior, names the destination simulator, and tells the agent what to do with the result. Nothing essential is missing for 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the meaning of the `text` parameter by stating it overrides the current circuit, but it adds little beyond what the schema already says. `base` is not mentioned in prose, though its schema description covers it.

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 purpose: returning a URL that opens the circuit in the Falstad simulator. It specifies the resource, the requested action, and the practical use case (view/edit interactively in Chrome), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like circuit_export or screenshot.

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 gives clear context for when to use it: 'Give this link to the user so they can view/edit the circuit interactively in Chrome.' It also explains the key input behavior (uses current circuit unless text is given). It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or saying when not to use it, so it isn't a full 5.

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