electron_configure_deep_linking

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

The description says 'generate' implying a write/create operation, but annotations include readOnlyHint: true, which is a direct contradiction. This misleads the agent about side effects.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently lists key outputs. No extraneous text, though could be broken into bullet points for clarity.

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 configuration generation tool, the description covers protocol registration, URL handling, platform config, and builder config. No output schema needed as description explains what is produced. Annotations provide safety hints.

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?

All three parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage). The tool description adds context about platform-specific configuration and single/multi-instance modes, enriching the schema.

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 'generate complete custom protocol / deep linking setup for Electron' with specific outputs (protocol registration, URL handling, platform config, builder config). It distinguishes from siblings as the only deep linking configuration tool.

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 setting up deep linking in Electron, and sibling tools are all different (audit, security, scaffold), making context clear. However, no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use is stated.

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