Get Webhound Shareable Link

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

Annotations indicate a mutation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description confirms it creates shareable links and clarifies it does not publish, but omits details like idempotency (idempotentHint=false suggests new links per call, unmentioned), permission requirements, or whether existing links are overwritten. Adds some context but could be richer.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the key action. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and a key constraint (no publishing). One could argue for a perfect score, but the lack of parameter description slightly reduces efficiency.

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's simplicity (1 parameter, output schema exists), the description is moderately complete. It covers the main behavior and constraints but misses parameter details and edge cases (e.g., error handling, session existence). The presence of an output schema mitigates the need for return value explanations, but parameter gaps remain.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain the single parameter 'session_id'. It does not – the parameter is not mentioned at all. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, but the description should clarify that it's the session ID of the report or dataset to share. This is a significant gap.

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 action: 'Make a report or dataset accessible to anyone with the link and return the share URL.' It distinguishes between report and dataset URL formats and explicitly states what it does not do (publish to Explore or create slug publications), effectively differentiating it from siblings.

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 the usage context (share-only) and mentions the URL formats, but it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'webhound_export_session' or 'webhound_start_report'. No direct 'use when' or 'when not' guidance is provided, leaving the agent to infer.

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