asset-url

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

The description explicitly states 'Pure mapping (no network)', indicating no side effects or network calls. This transparency is crucial as no annotations are provided. The behavior is fully disclosed without contradictions.

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?

Three concise sentences: introduction, mapping explanation, and use case. No redundant information; every sentence adds value.

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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is fully complete. It covers functionality, behavior, input format, and usage context.

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 schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'remotePath', describing its format. The description adds minimal extra value by mentioning the mapping rule, but it largely repeats schema content, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'return' and the resource 'public HTTPS URL for a file under the Foundry Data/ root'. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying it is a pure mapping (no network call) for generating URLs, contrasting with tools like download-asset.

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 usage for converting asset paths to loadable links (e.g., 'Useful for turning an uploaded/known asset path into a link Foundry or a player can load'), but it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use. No exclusions are provided.

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