get_web_app_url

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, which is helpful, but the description does not disclose potential side effects, required permissions, or what happens when no deployments exist. It lacks explicit safety or edge-case context beyond the basic operation.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any filler. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 relatively simple with two parameters and no output schema, but the description does not explain the return format or what 'access config' entails. It lacks edge-case information such as behavior when no deployments are found. While complete for a basic read tool, it could be more self-sufficient given the absence of annotations and output schema.

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 both parameters fully described in the input schema. The tool description itself does not add any extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 gets web app /exec URL(s) and access config for deployments, which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like script_projects_deployments_list or script_projects_deployments_get by focusing on the URL and config rather than general deployment info.

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 intended usage is implied: use this tool when you need the web app URL or access config for a deployment. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over publish_web_app or other deployment-related tools, nor any exclusions or alternatives mentioned.

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