Build Asset URL / 构建素材 URL

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'Construct' implies a pure, side-effect-free computation rather than a network fetch, which is useful, but it says nothing about the return shape (bare URL string vs object), whether any validation or error is returned for a nonexistent path, or any auth/rate-limit behavior.

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?

Two front-loaded sentences, each doing real work — first the action, then the use condition. The size is inflated only by the bilingual mirroring convention, not by redundancy in substance.

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 three-parameter URL composition tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description covers what it does and when to reach for it. The one remaining gap is the exact return value/error behavior, which matters slightly for a constructor that can be given a bad path.

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% with all three required params documented with formats and examples, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the mental model that these are 'path components' composed into a URL, but nothing beyond that mapping.

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?

States a specific verb and artifact — 'Construct the direct SVG URL' — and names the exact inputs (category, subcategory, filename). The clause 'but the asset is not in the indexed metadata' implicitly separates it from search_assets/get_asset, so an agent can route correctly without opening a schema.

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?

Gives a clear triggering condition: use it when you already know the exact category, subcategory, and filename and the asset is not indexed. It doesn't explicitly name the alternative tools to fall back on when the asset IS indexed, but the negative condition is stated plainly.

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