generate_universal_links

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions the outputs and that hosting instructions are included, but it does not clarify whether files are returned directly, saved, or sent via email, nor does it note any limitations (e.g., no domain validation). This is adequate but not rich.

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 sentence that clearly conveys the core action and outputs. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and includes all essential information without fluff. Every word earns its place.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description does a good job of indicating what the tool returns (the two files) and that instructions are included. It is complete for a simple generation tool, though it could benefit from explaining the exact format of the response (e.g., JSON payload, file contents). This is a minor gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds context by explaining the output includes hosting instructions and that the domain is optional (used in examples), which aligns with the schema. Since the description does not introduce contradictions and the schema is comprehensive, a 4 is justified for the minor additional context.

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 purpose: generating configuration files for iOS Universal Links and Android App Links, specifically naming the output files (apple-app-site-association and assetlinks.json). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like generate_hook or generate_component, which are for code generation, not configuration.

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 when to use this tool (when setting up Universal/App Links), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention any alternatives. It lacks guidance on prerequisites like having a domain and associated apps, which would be important for an agent to know.

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