shorten

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond a simple 'shortens a URL' by stating that the resulting link redirects to the original and that codes are stored for a year, which is a meaningful retention policy. It does not specify whether the operation is idempotent or describe response format, but the core side effects are 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 two sentences long and front-loads the core purpose. Every word contributes meaningful information (shortening, output format, redirect behavior, retention). There is no fluff or repetition 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?

The tool is simple, has one parameter, and no output schema. The description covers the key purpose, behavior, and lifecycle (one-year storage). It does not explicitly state what the API returns, but that is reasonably inferred from the wording 'into a compact link.' This is adequate for the tool's complexity, though slightly more detail on the response could make it fully complete.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'url' with a description and format (uri). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema states. Since schema coverage is high, a baseline of 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 tool's function: 'Shorten a long URL into a compact api.agishub.com/s/<code> link that redirects to the original.' It names a specific verb (shorten), a specific resource (long URL), and describes the output format. No sibling tool has a similar purpose, so it is well-differentiated.

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 context is clear: this tool is for when you need to shorten a URL. It does not explicitly discuss when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the simplicity of the tool and the clear purpose make the intended usage evident. No exclusions or alternative tools are needed for such a straightforward utility.

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